Oral Answers to Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Fishing

Robert Goodwill: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive on the transfer of fishing licences and fixed quota allocations from Scottish fishing vessels.

David Cairns: I have had no discussions with the Scottish Executive on the transfer of fishing licences and fixed quota allocations.

Robert Goodwill: We have some experience of salmon poaching on the River Esk, but this is the first time we have come across Salmond poaching of quota. The First Minister has imposed a one-way valve, in effect, on quota transfers, whereby quota can be transferred into Scotland but not out. Does the Minister agree that the First Minister is getting a bit big for his boots and is exceeding his powers? Will the Minister take legal action to enforce the rule of law?

David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue affecting fishing communities, not just in Scotland but around the coast of the UK. The unilateral moratorium imposed by the Scottish Executive without any warning or consultation will be damaging not just to English fishing interests, but to fishing interests in Scotland. It is not just me saying that; the secretary of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, George MacRae, said it was unfortunate that a moratorium had been placed on
	"a perfectly correct and legitimate trading activity."
	In these circumstances, there can be little doubt that the Scottish marine directorate—that is, the Scottish Government—has scored an own goal.

Michael Moore: Does the Minister believe that the moratorium is legal? What steps are he and his colleagues taking to tackle that issue? More broadly on quotas, he will be aware that as a result of the climate conditions in the North sea and of boats not leaving the harbour because of the fuel crisis, the east coast nephrops fishery in the Farne deeps is down 50 per cent. this year. Given those circumstances, will he give an assurance that there will be no reduction in quota next year?

David Cairns: Issues to do with next year's quota have to be decided at the Fisheries Council. On the first point, the Marine and Fisheries Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), has been in long discussions with Richard Lochhead and the Scottish Executive about ways in which these quota exchanges can be managed and carried out more professionally, but the reality is that to circumvent all of that with no warning and to impose a moratorium that is not universally welcomed in Scotland, let alone elsewhere, is deeply irresponsible.

Anne Begg: The fact that Richard Lochhead and the SNP Administration have taken such a unilateral decision blows a rather large hole through the SNP's desire that a Minister from the Scottish Parliament should lead on UK fisheries negotiations in Europe. Obviously they do not think of the good of the fisheries industry across the whole of the UK, or even, as my hon. Friend the Minister has said, in Scotland.

David Cairns: My hon. Friend is right, which is why this will be seen to be a very short-sighted decision. The reality is that when it comes to negotiating the UK position within the common fisheries policy, the SNP is all over the place. It does not want to be in the common fisheries policy and will not even be in the room when these things are being negotiated.

Angus Robertson: I recommend to the Minister that he read the latest editorial from  Fishing News , which says:
	"Active Scottish fishermen will be delighted that they have a government that is taking their interests to heart."
	That is the SNP Government in Scotland. The editorial goes on to say, importantly:
	"Clearly, safeguarding quotas will be of little use if the price of the fuel the boats burn in catching the fish is so high that they are forced out of business."
	Why does Scotland have the highest fuel prices when we are the biggest oil producer in the EU?

David Cairns: Is it not absolutely typical that on a question about fishing the hon. Gentleman neglects his core policy, which is to pull out of the common fisheries policy? He knows that such a move will mean renegotiating the entire treaty of Rome, which means getting 27 nations to agree with him. This very point was put to the hon. Gentleman's colleague Richard Lochhead by Gordon Brewer, who asked:
	"Can you name me one member state of the EU which agrees with your idea that the common fisheries policy is in fact optional?"
	Richard Lochhead replied:
	"Well, I don't ask other member states for their opinion."
	How on earth is he going to negotiate the treaty of Rome from scratch if he does not even ask other member states what their opinion is?

Carer's Allowance

David Taylor: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the carer's allowance in Scotland.

David Cairns: I have regular discussions with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on a range of issues. The carer's allowance provides financial support to more than 472,000 carers across Great Britain, including 44,170 in Scotland.

David Taylor: In the east midlands of England, we can only aspire to the admirably high standards delivered by the Scottish social care system, rooted in the Care 21 report on the future of unpaid care in Scotland. How is the idea of devolving the carer's allowance to Holyrood being implemented? What will be the source of funding for any subsequent increases in the allowance rate and in the new kinship carer's allowance, details of which were announced yesterday?

David Cairns: My hon. Friend has a long tradition of, and reputation for, campaigning on these issues. I am aware that he has raised the issue of the carer's allowance with my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for disabled people. He rightly points out that Scottish standards in social care are excellent and have been through various Administrations, and I commend Scotland's social care practitioners on that. I shall reserve judgment on the kinship carer's allowance until I have seen the colour of the Scottish National party's money, because what we have got used to in Scotland over the past year are high-falutin' announcements with absolutely no money to pay for them.

Tom Clarke: Given the increase in child care places in England following the Aiming High review, does my hon. Friend agree that if that were replicated in Scotland, as intended, the need for the carer's allowance would decrease as more parents would be able to find jobs?

David Cairns: I think the whole House acknowledges the role that my right hon. Friend has played in campaigning in this area, particularly for the rights of disabled children and their carers. It is simply a matter of growing national scandal that the money that has been allocated, thanks to the report that he offered, precisely for carers of disabled children in Scotland has simply not got through to them. The issue must be pursued with the First Minister to ensure that money that should be going to the families of disabled children actually gets to them.

Robert Smith: Given that next week is carers week, it is important to recognise just what a vital role carers play in supporting their family and those in need. Could the Minister say what reassurance he can give carers who collect their carer's allowance at post offices that following his discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions they will continue to be able to do so after 2010?

David Cairns: It is our intention that people will be able to carry on collecting carer's allowance on a universal basis, but, obviously, negotiations on the Post Office card account are ongoing. I commend the hon. Gentleman on getting in a question about post offices, though.

Antonine Wall

Michael Connarty: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the nomination of the Antonine wall as a world heritage site.

Des Browne: This is a very exciting opportunity for Scotland, which already boasts five world heritage sites. In 2003, the Government endorsed the working up of a formal bid for world heritage status for the Antonine wall, and in 2007 the nomination was submitted to UNESCO as an extension of the frontiers of the Roman empire transnational world heritage site. As my hon. Friend knows, between 2 and 10 July in Quebec a decision will be made on the bid by the World Heritage Committee.

Michael Connarty: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply; obviously, he has researched the matter well. He will know that one third of the Antonine wall runs through Falkirk district, starting from Borrowstouness—or Bo'ness—in my constituency, and passing through Camelon, where the most northerly fort of the Roman empire, Rough castle, is well preserved. Will he join me in praising the work of Falkirk council and, in particular, the chair of the cultural committee, Adrian Mahoney, who has made this his priority for Scotland? Can the Secretary of State assure us that the resources of the UK Government will be put together with the efforts of Falkirk to ensure that this is delivered as a UNESCO world heritage site in 2008?

Des Browne: I commend my hon. Friend and Falkirk council, which is one of five councils across Scotland supporting this bid and has sustained the infrastructure of the Antonine wall in its present state. That allows it to become part of this international application for world heritage status. I have no difficulty in commending Falkirk council on the work that it has done. In 1999, it secured lottery funding to improve the infrastructure, and it continues to discuss with the Heritage Lottery Fund not only how to exploit the tourism potential, but the restoration and maintenance of the sites, as indeed do other councils. My hon. Friend can rest assured that not only the United Kingdom Government but the Austrian and German Governments, who are also involved in this international bid, will put all the resources necessary behind it to secure this important status.

Jo Swinson: I very much welcome the Secretary of State's comments. I am sure we all wish the Antonine wall bid team well and congratulate all those involved in preparing the bid, including those in East Dunbartonshire, which also contains a section of the wall. If, as we hope, the Antonine wall secures world heritage status next month, will he facilitate discussions between the Scottish Government and those involved in the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth games project to ensure that that opportunity is taken to promote this fascinating piece of Roman heritage in the cultural activities surrounding the games? That would also help to bring the wall to an international audience.

Des Browne: The hon. Lady and her local council deserve credit for the energetic support that they have given to the bid. She will be aware that the Scottish Executive are part of the international group of those who are supporting the bid. Securing that status will generate significant potential, not just in cultural terms but in terms of tourism, and will present a good opportunity to combine the exploitation of that potential with the 2014 Commonwealth games. I shall do everything I can to ensure that all these objectives and opportunities are exploited fully. For my own part, I have already written to the committee to express the support of the Scotland Office and the UK Government at that level for this bid.

Rosemary McKenna: It would appear that the whole House is in agreement with the efforts to ensure that the Antonine wall is regarded as an important and historic site. Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to add to the representations of the Labour-led North Lanarkshire and East Dunbartonshire councils for this recognition to be awarded to the wall, significant parts of which run through my constituency?

Des Browne: It may only be a coincidence, but conspicuous by the absence of their support for the wall are those who were kept out by it when it was built. We may hear from that part of Scotland as well. It is good that there is cross-party support for the bid, for obvious reasons. My hon. Friend is a champion of this bid and deserves recognition for that, as do her local councils for the work that they have done. This is an important part of Scotland's heritage and we are proud of it. It is now getting the recognition that it deserves after a significant time. It links Scotland into international relationships across Europe, of which Scotland is very proud and has been for some time.

Postal Services

Alistair Carmichael: What recent discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on postal services in Scotland.

David Cairns: My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on a range of issues.

Alistair Carmichael: The interim report of the Hooper review concluded that the only people who had benefited from the liberalisation of the letter post market were a handful of banks and credit card companies and that it had also led to a real threat to the universal service obligation. Was that what the Government intended when they undertook this enterprise? What are the Government doing now to ensure that the threats to the universal service are not realised, because once it is lost we will never get it back?

David Cairns: We remain committed to the universal service obligation, which is why we are investing hundreds of millions of pounds in a sustainable post office network. I know that some closures of post office branches in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have recently been announced, with six to close and 66 to remain open. If we were not investing to the degree that we are in sustaining the post office network and the universal service obligation, those figures would most likely be reversed. We are committed to a universal service and a vibrant post office network, and that is why we are putting the money in.

Malcolm Bruce: With the closure of Montgarrie post office, and the announcement of the closure of— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The SNP group must behave themselves in the Chamber. It is bad manners: when an hon. Member is putting the case for his constituency, he should be heard.

Malcolm Bruce: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With Montgarrie post office closed and Rhynie, Lumsden, Kennethmont and Collieston suffering reduced hours, does the Minister acknowledge that those communities will lose both income and services? More to the point, with uncertainty over the future of the Post Office card account, no post offices in my constituency or any other can feel confident about the future, even if they do not face closure now.

David Cairns: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There have been several closures but, as he recognises, the future is now more certain for many post offices because we are providing help and support. As I said to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), discussions on a replacement for the Post Office card account are under way and we are committed to its continuation. The right hon. Gentleman knows that people's shopping habits have changed, and they are now accessing services in different ways. The Post Office has to adapt to that new reality, but we are not walking away from our commitment. Indeed, we are investing massively to sustain the network.

National Identity Register

Philip Dunne: Whether personal data held by the Scottish Executive and their associated public bodies will be held on the national identity register.

Des Browne: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no. The national identity register will hold basic personal identity information obtained during the enrolment process and maintained by the applicant.

Philip Dunne: If the Scottish Government refuse to use the ID card, does the Secretary of State not agree that having a separate scheme in Scotland from that in the rest of the UK will fatally undermine a national ID card?

Des Browne: Not at all. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not fully understand where the strengths of the scheme lie. He also probably does not understand his party's policy on identity cards, given that 80 per cent. of the scheme and its costs relate to e-passports, which are supported by his party. The scheme and its integrity depend on being able to build a database that links biometrics to the individual person's identity so that it can be protected. Whether any service, devolved or otherwise, chooses to use that opportunity to check the identity of those people who access the service will in no way undermine the scheme.

Ben Wallace: The Government have constantly said that the ID card scheme would help to protect Scotland from the threat of terrorism. The Anglo-Irish treaty in 1921 will mean that Irish citizens will not be required to have an ID card, and the Government's legislation will mean that foreigners who stay for three months or less in Scotland will not have to have one either. Do not these foreign exemptions, plus the opposition of the Scottish Government, mean that the ID card scheme in Scotland is a colossal waste of money and an unnecessary threat to civil liberties?

Des Browne: It is nothing of the sort. The hon. Gentleman has asked me questions at the Dispatch Box about the ID card scheme before. On the last occasion, it was manifest that he did not understand his party's policy of support for 80 per cent. of the scheme. The scheme underpins e-passports, and 80 per cent. of the cost and administration of the scheme is required for the e-passport scheme that his party supports.
	Let me deal with the issue of whether the existence of a national identity scheme helps us to tackle terrorism. Of course it will, for the following reason: 67 terrorists have been convicted in the UK courts in the past 18 months, and it is almost certain that 90 per cent. of them had multiple identities. Anything that helps those whom we charge with stopping those people carrying out their evil tasks in this society will be useful. That is not only my view; it is that of those we send to police such matters, who say that the single most important thing we can do to protect ourselves against terrorism is to introduce an identity scheme.

Alan Reid: The Scottish Parliament has quite rightly decided that it wants nothing to do with the scheme, yet Scottish residents will still have to pay for identity cards and for the running of the national identity register through their taxes. Will the Government not accept that this is just an expensive waste of money that would be better spent on employing more police?

Des Browne: There is a fundamental misunderstanding about this scheme, it would appear, across the Opposition Benches. I know what the hon. Gentleman's party's position is, but I ask him rhetorically whether he supports the e-passport system. If he supports his party's policy, he will. The national identity scheme is necessary to underpin and support that e-passport system. Any UK citizen who wants to travel in the 21st century will require an e-passport. We will require a database that connects biometrics to those citizens' identities. To extend that for the comparatively small number of people who will not have passports so that they can take advantage of the opportunity seems positive to me. That is what the people of Scotland think, and it is what the vast majority of people in the UK think. The hon. Gentleman and his party had better get connected to the opportunity.

Local Taxation

Eric Joyce: What representations he has received from the Scottish Executive on arrangements for collection of local taxation.

Des Browne: I have received no representations from the Scottish Executive in relation to the arrangements for collection of local income tax.

Eric Joyce: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Does he share my concern that the Scottish National party Administration's plans for a local income tax in Scotland appear to bring 55,000 students within the ambit of local income tax for the first time?

Des Browne: Another flaw in the SNP local income tax policy is uncovered daily, and this particular one relates to the policy's alleged fairness. An answer to a question in the Scottish Parliament revealed that 55,000 students would be brought into paying local income tax. Of course, all those students are exempt from paying council tax. I have a series of quotations from student leaders indicating how unfair the policy would be, but I think that we all know how unfair it would be. It is bad enough that we did not know that it would affect those students, but we do not know how the money would be collected, and those are only two of several major flaws in the plans for local income tax.

Stewart Hosie: On local taxation in Scotland, the Secretary of State will know that the UK Government confirmed in 1997 that council tax benefit would form part of the Scottish block. That was repeated in the funding statement published by the Government in October 2007. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that if the Scottish Government proceed with changing the nature of local taxation in Scotland, this Secretary of State will hold fast against the Treasury and ensure that the UK Labour Government do not denude Scotland of the £400 million that it gets to offset local taxation in Scotland?

Des Browne: To all but a very small minority of people, it appears quite clear that if there is no council tax, there is no need for any council tax benefit. The SNP's fundamental problem with the policy—there are many other problems—is that it promised the people of Scotland that it would unveil a tax system that would be fair, but it has unveiled a tax system with a number of manifest unfairnesses, and it is seeking to cover them up by trying to access a benefit that relates to the taxation system that it said was unfair and that it wanted to remove. That does not make any sense.

Ann McKechin: I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce) about the effect on students in Scotland. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State next meets the First Minister, will he get clarification of whether the policy will affect English students studying in Scotland or Scottish students studying in England?

Des Browne: I will of course seek to clarify that issue for my hon. Friend. The fundamental problem faced by the SNP with its proposal for a local income tax—it would certainly not be local, of course, having been fixed centrally—is that we have revealed this week the flaw that it will affect 55,000 students. The SNP must explain why that manifest unfairness will be imposed on students, whom it was elected to help support.

David Mundell: The Treasury, no doubt in consultation with the Justice Secretary, has said, along with several legal experts, that a tax that is set and collected on a Scotland-wide basis would not be sufficiently local to remain within the powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Does the Secretary of State thus intend to make a formal legal assessment of the competence of the Scottish Government's proposals, or does he propose to leave it to aggrieved taxpayers to test them in the courts?

Des Browne: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that we have not yet seen the legislative proposals. I am not surprised that the SNP Executive are having such difficulty in drafting and revealing them because another problem becomes apparent every week and every day. When we eventually see the proposals, there will of course be an assessment, as is the case with all legislation, to ensure that they are compatible with the devolution settlement.

David Mundell: I thank the Secretary of State. He might be aware that Professor Alan Page, a professor of public law at the university of Dundee, has said of the SNP's proposed local income tax:
	"It is inevitable that the matter would end up in the courts; it is unavoidable...The question of legality will cast a long shadow over the proposal until it is settled one way or another."
	As the guardian of the devolution settlement, does the Secretary of State not believe that he has a responsibility to help to settle the matter?

Des Browne: Of course I have responsibilities in relation to the devolution settlement; they are set out in law, and I intend to fulfil them. In my experience of practising law, it is always unwise for a person to anticipate what they will be asked to express a legal opinion on, and if one asks five lawyers for a legal opinion, one gets six different opinions. In my position as Secretary of State for Scotland, with those responsibilities, it seems wise to wait to see the legislative proposals. I have, in the Advocate-General, access to one of the leading lawyers in Scotland. I rely on his advice regularly. He will give me advice, and if it is necessary for me to act on it, I will do so.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

David Kidney: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 June.

Gordon Brown: Before listing my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in sending our profound condolences to the family and friends of Marine Dale Gostick, who was killed in Afghanistan on Sunday 25 May. We owe him, and all those who have given their life in the service of our country, a huge debt of gratitude.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

David Kidney: On behalf of myself and other Back Benchers, may I add my condolences to the family and friends of Marine Dale Gostick, who was killed in an explosion in Afghanistan? Our thoughts are also with his two comrades who were seriously injured in that explosion.
	The tragic killings from stabbings are causing concern everywhere in the country, though I stress that they are not happening everywhere. Will my right hon. Friend accept that, alongside tough laws on possession and use, it is important to take action with families, schools and communities to tackle a culture that allows some people to think that it is acceptable to carry a weapon?

Gordon Brown: I, too, send my condolences to the families of those who have suffered as a result of knives and violent crimes in recent weeks. Every parent will want their teenage sons and daughters not only to be safe, but to feel safe in our neighbourhoods. That is why knives are unacceptable, and we have to do everything in our power to deter their use. That is why the average sentence for carrying a knife is rising, and that is why there are three times as many people in prison for the possession of knives. That is why we are using the powers of stop and search. In London, in Operation Blunt 2, some 4,000 people were stopped and 200 arrested. That is why wands, arches and metal detectors are being used. That is why we need visible policing to back up our safer school policy, support for parents in their communities, and the education programme that we are carrying out.
	The whole House will agree on the presumption that we prosecute, on which the Association of Chief Police Officers will lay down its proposals in the next few days. It is right, when we see young teenagers below the age of 18 carrying knives, that the presumption that we prosecute should now extend to 16-year-olds as well; that is what the Government propose.

David Cameron: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Marine Dale Gostick, who was killed in Helmand province on 25 May. He died serving our country and we should honour his memory.
	The Chancellor of the Exchequer is today in front of the Select Committee on the Treasury. The next tax hike planned by the Government is to hit family cars, including those bought seven years ago, with massive increases in vehicle excise duty. Is the Prime Minister really going to go ahead with this deeply unpopular tax when families are struggling with the cost of living, or can he give us another of his trademark U-turns?

Gordon Brown: If the right hon. Gentleman looks in detail at the proposal, he will see that the majority of drivers will benefit from it. If he looks in detail at his own policy, it says:
	"We recommend...changes in VED, aimed primarily at influencing the used car market where annual running costs comprise a larger proportion of total costs."
	What he proposes is a band in excess of £500; that is far worse than what he says that we are proposing.

David Cameron: When is the Prime Minister going to learn that new green taxes should be offset, one by one, by cuts in family taxes? The Prime Minister says that we should look at the detail; let me take him up on that, because he spews out statistics that, in any other walk of life, would result in trading standards officers coming in and clamping him in irons. He says that next year, half of all motorists will be better off or no worse off; that is what he has just said. The full effect of the tax rise is not planned to take effect until 2010, and the Treasury has said that under this regime, 81 per cent. of cars will be worse off—once again, dodgy statistics from the Prime Minister.
	Let us start when the tax was first announced. Can the Prime Minister tell us why the Chancellor, in his Budget speech, made no mention of the fact that the tax would hit people who had bought a car up to seven years ago? Why no mention?

Gordon Brown: It was in the Budget documents. Twenty-four of the 30 top models, which are the most popular models, will have the same or lower tax as a result of it. The right hon. Gentleman says that he supports green taxes. He also said a few days ago that
	"there will be tough choices to make for the environment and I won't shy away from them for one moment".
	Let us assume that we both agree on the need for green taxes. Let us also agree that we need to deal with polluting cars, and let the right hon. Gentleman tell us that he now supports our policy.

David Cameron: If a company director got up and read out a statement like that, the authorities would be after him. The Prime Minister says, "Let's concentrate on the detail." Let me take one of the things that he has just said. He said that 24 out of the 30 car models will not be affected. That is what he just said. What he is doing when he uses that figure of 24 is treating the Ford Focus, for example, as one model. In fact, there are 40 models of the Ford Focus. There is the saloon, the estate, the green car— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Leader of the Opposition speak.

David Cameron: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Are hon. Members defying the Chair?

David Cameron: I know the Prime Minister thinks that one fills up a car with a barrel of oil, but I am speaking about the cars that people buy with their money. There are 40 models of the Ford Focus— [Interruption.] I do not know why Labour Members are all shouting at me. It is the Prime Minister who has given them the lowest poll rating since Michael Foot.
	Back to the Ford Focus. There are 40 models of the Ford Focus. Only three of them are better off. When will the Prime Minister stop using such dodgy statistics to back up his figures?

Gordon Brown: As a result of the measures that are being taken to deal with polluting cars, a third more cars in this country are low polluting and a quarter are less polluting, so we are making advances in encouraging people to buy the less polluting cars. The right hon. Gentleman says that he supports green taxes. Steve Norris, who was on his quality of life review, says we should return to the fuel duty escalator. When will the Conservative party be honest? When Conservative Members say that they support green taxes and then run away from every one of them, is it not like the Leader of the Opposition when he cycles to work, with his car following? He is sounding more and more like a used car salesman today.

David Cameron: It is not my Back Benchers who are telling me to get on my bike. It would do the Prime Minister good to get out a bit. The tax is not a green tax; it is a stealth tax. The former Transport Minister, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman)—I do not know whether he is on the Prime Minister's cold calling list—said:
	"A 'green' tax that you cannot avoid by changing your behaviour is not a 'green' tax, it's just a tax."
	What on earth is green about taxing someone who bought a Ford Mondeo five years ago?

Gordon Brown: Now the right hon. Gentleman says that there can be green taxes, but he excludes any tax on a car from being a green tax. Does he not know that the reforms will save 1.3 million— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) is too near the Speaker's Chair to be shouting. He should be quiet.

Gordon Brown: I was pointing out to the House that we expect the reforms to save 1.3 million tonnes of CO2 and to increase by 650 per cent. the number of clean cars that pay little or no vehicle excise duty because they are the least polluting cars. So we are making a change in the way we use energy for the environment. The Leader of the Opposition says that he wants significant incentives to encourage the ownership of vehicles. Why will he not support the measures that are before us?

David Cameron: That is absolutely no answer to the question of how on earth it is green to tax someone who bought a car five years ago. The director of Greenpeace says:
	"It's the kind of measure that gives green taxes a bad name because it does not change behaviour."
	A bit closer to home, we have a Government Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), who asks, quite rightly
	"how can you change behaviour when you are introducing a tax on an action that took place seven years earlier? ...millions...could be affected".
	The hon. Gentleman said that this is "retrospective taxation" and that it is "undesirable". If this is the Government policy that the Prime Minister is so proud of, what is that man still doing in the Government?

Gordon Brown: We have put forward our proposals on VED. The Conservatives put forward a document suggesting even more extreme and radical proposals than this. The right hon. Gentleman is backing away from his proposals as he has done on just about everything else. I believe that we have to deal with the problems of pollution. He said that he would, but he refuses to do so.

David Cameron: This Prime Minister is now so weak that members of his own Government can come out and attack his policy, and they just sit there as part of his Government.
	The Prime Minister keeps telling us about reports to the Conservative party; let me read him some reports to the Labour party. This is one from  The Times yesterday, with quotations from Cabinet Ministers: "He's made terrible misjudgments,"; "He's crap at communication," —[Interruption.] None of them have the nerve to challenge him in a leadership election; perhaps they would like to own up to the quotes. Come on—who was responsible for this one:
	"the Government is being buffeted by storms rather than steering a clear course"?
	Anyone? Hands up!

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just ask the question.

David Cameron: Why does the Prime Minister not realise that if he is still here next April, he will have to get rid of this deeply unpopular and unenvironmental tax? Does he not understand that if he does not get rid of it, they will probably get rid of him?

Gordon Brown: I now know what the head of the right hon. Gentleman's own policy commission on the environment meant when he said of the Leader of the Opposition:
	"Whether he's riding a bike, or visiting glaciers, it's all part of projecting a message...A lot of people will say this is just opportunism. They may be right."
	When it comes to the issue of supporting action on the environment, we now find that the right hon. Gentleman runs away at every point. When it comes to helping the poor, he says that he wants to help the poor and then does not support our tax cut. When it comes to helping the low paid, he does not support the minimum wage. When it comes to helping the environment, he runs away.

Sandra Osborne: I welcome the Prime Minister's comments on tackling knife crime. Will he join me in sending condolences to the family of 18-year-old Laura Thomson, who was knifed to death in a brutal murder in my constituency? Does he agree that this issue affects families throughout the United Kingdom and will he have discussions with the Scottish Government on how this can best be tackled throughout the UK?

Gordon Brown: I thank my hon. Friend and I join her in sending condolences to the family that have suffered so much as a result of a knife crime that has led to a death. As I said earlier, we have to take every possible measure to remove knives from our streets. That is why we have taken the action that we have, and that is why tomorrow we will be publishing more proposals about what we can do. I think that it is very important that every parent gets the message that they, too, are responsible when their teenage children are carrying knives. We want to support them in every effort to get knives off the streets.

Nicholas Clegg: I would like to add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of Marine Dale Gostick.
	We have all been appalled by the grotesque spectacle of Robert Mugabe lecturing the world on food security just as his Government are blocking the distribution of food aid to his own people. What message does it send when a man who has brought ruin and starvation to his own country continues to be honoured by a knighthood from ours? Will the Prime Minister at least accept that it is difficult to put pressure on other countries to do their bit to bring the Mugabe regime to heel if we do not take this simple, basic step? Will he take immediate action to strip Mugabe of his knighthood?

Gordon Brown: I am less interested in the symbols than in the substance. We have got to get elections in Zimbabwe that are seen to be free and fair, and we have got to get international observers to be present at those elections so that they are seen by the world as free and fair. Zimbabwe deserves to have a Government who are fully democratically elected and put in place, and that is where I will put my efforts. As for the famine in Zimbabwe, and the loss of lives around the world as a result of famine, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it was important that we were represented at the United Nations conference yesterday.

Nicholas Clegg: Of course I agree with the Prime Minister's tough words, but they need to be translated into action. Will he therefore make it clear that unless minimum standards are met for the conduct of the elections, including the admission of international observers and explicit statements from Zimbabwe's military leaders that they will recognise the outcome of the poll, the UK will block all foreign currency remittances to Zimbabwe that fund Mugabe's odious regime, and that he will request our allies in the region, and the world, to do the same?

Gordon Brown: We will of course look at every action that we can take, but the first thing to do is to ensure that these elections are free and fair. We are working with other countries to ensure that there are international observers from other parts of the world, as well as from Africa. There is a need for hundreds of observers because of the geography of the country and the threats of intimidation. I am working with the president of the African Union, the president of the South African Development Community and other leaders around the world to ensure that the offer of international observers is there and is taken up. I hope that the whole House will agree that that is the first priority to ensure that the elections are free and fair.

Mark Durkan: Will the Prime Minister accept the very wide welcome that there has been for the shift in policy by his Government that contributed to the ban on cluster munitions being agreed in Dublin last week? Can he assure us that he is determined that the British Government will be among the first 30 to sign the treaty later this year to bring it into effect? Can he give us indications as to the time scale for ratification in this Parliament, and also the time scale for the ending of the British Government's stockpiles and the removal of the US stockpiles?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue and for his long pursuit of a ban on cluster bombs. I was pleased that the United Kingdom was able to break the deadlock in the negotiations that were taking place and pleased that other countries followed us in making their decision that they too would ban cluster bombs. I believe that this treaty can now move forward to being signed. Of course, there were countries who were not present at these negotiations and who also have to be brought in, and it is my intention to talk to all those countries to see that we can have a global treaty that will outlaw the cluster bombs that have done so much harm.

Bill Wiggin: What advice does the Prime Minister have for people who receive nuisance phone calls early in the morning? The caller has a metallic voice, he just will not hang up, and he has a very repetitive message. If the Prime Minister is not able to put a stop to it, will his Cabinet?

Gordon Brown: Again, the Conservatives have the chance to ask anything on behalf of their constituencies and they reduce the debates in the House of Commons to trivia. I am happy to be in contact with and talking to people in the electorate; perhaps the hon. Gentleman should do so as well.

Michael Clapham: The Prime Minister will be aware that energy forecasters are predicting that oil prices will be $150 a barrel by the end of the year. He will also be aware that because of oil contract price indexing, gas prices follow oil prices, making windfall profits for the energy companies worldwide. Does he agree, therefore, that there is a need for a united and concerted effort to decouple gas prices from oil prices?

Gordon Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend about the problems that have been caused to every citizen of the country by rising oil prices and rising gas prices. I think that people know that oil was $11 a barrel 10 years ago; it is now $130 a barrel. That means that petrol prices have risen and gas and electricity prices have risen. There are things that we can do internationally as well as nationally. We have raised the winter allowance, taken action to help low-income households, and suspended the rise in fuel duty for the time being, but there are also things that we can do internationally. One is that the European Union sorts out the gas and electricity markets, and we are pressing for that liberalisation to go ahead in the next few months. Another is the inquiry that Ofgem is mounting into competition in the industry. I believe that we need a dialogue between all oil consumers, gas consumers and gas and oil producers so that we can get the price of oil down, to the benefit of all people in this country.

Sammy Wilson: The Prime Minister will be aware of the Sinn Fein threat to bring down the Northern Ireland Assembly tomorrow. I am sure that the irony of republicans wishing to reinstate rule from London will not be lost on the House, or on the people of Northern Ireland. Will he give an assurance that the Government will not cave in to this blackmail, and that in the event of direct rule having to be reintroduced—something that my party will do its best to avoid—the Sinn Fein agenda, which it has not been able to persuade the Northern Ireland Assembly to adopt, will not be adopted by his Government or the House?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman can be absolutely sure that we will stick to the policies that we have pursued. I can also tell him that I have had talks with the leaders of all the parties in the Administration in Northern Ireland; I hope that we can move forward tomorrow, and that the new First Minister will be nominated, as will the Deputy First Minister. I believe that that can and will happen. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the retiring First Minister, who is not with us today, for all his efforts on behalf of the peace process and on behalf of reconciliation. He truly has made a historic contribution to the future of Northern Ireland.

Sharon Hodgson: Can the Prime Minister tell the House why his judgment is that we need 42 days' pre-charge detention, and not to rely on the Civil Contingencies Act 2004?

Gordon Brown: This is an issue that the House will debate next week. It is important for the House to know that we have put in place what I believe are major civil liberties safeguards to prevent the arbitrary treatment of the individual. We have put in place safeguards that require any order that comes before this House to be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions. We would require a vote of this House—a second vote—before there could be any opportunity to go up to 42 days. We are putting in place the right for the independent reviewer to examine any case where the up-to-42 days provision is used. At the same time, a judge must review the case every seven days.
	I have to tell the House that for 11 years, I have been looking at these issues, whether as Chancellor or in this job, and we have seen how the complexity and sophistication of the investigations that need to be conducted have grown. We saw in one case only two years ago that there were 400 computers, 8,000 CDs and 25,000 exhibits that needed to be examined, which compares dramatically with where we were 10 years ago. If we are to take the advice of the police, the former head of the counter-terrorism command, who published an article this week, the former head of MI6, Sir Ian Blair, who is the head of the Metropolitan police, and the head of the Association of Chief Police Officers, we know that this power will be needed at some time. With all the safeguards that we have put in place, I believe that it is right for the House to vote for the up-to-42 days proposal that we are putting forward.

Mr. Speaker: I call Boris Johnson.

Boris Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for all your kindness over the years.
	Can I use my last few seconds in this great cockpit of our nation to ask the Prime Minister to join me in congratulating the London authorities on successfully implementing the ban on alcohol on tubes and buses, and on doubling the safer transport teams so that we will have more uniformed people on buses than at any time in the last 25 years? Can I point out to him that no matter how hard working—

Mr. Speaker: Order—[Hon. Members: "More!"] I am the boss in here, not the Mayor, and I have got to tell him that he should only have one supplementary. He has had three, so we will have to leave it at that.

Gordon Brown: I am sure that the whole House is going to miss the contributions of the hon. Gentleman, not only in speech, but in writing—those have been more significant over the last few years.
	I welcome the ban on alcohol. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the policy put forward by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families earlier this week to deal with the problems of alcohol among young people is a major step forward in holding parents, as well as young people, responsible for binge drinking. I hope that he will also accept that the reason why crime has fallen in London is that there are 6,000 more police officers and 4,000 community support officers. That would not have been possible without the previous Mayor and the decisions of this Government.

Ian Gibson: In the pending equalities Bill, will my right hon. Friend agree to put discrimination on the ground of age alongside discrimination on the grounds of religion, sexuality and disability and at the heart of what could be a world-beating Bill? Many people think that the claims of the elderly are only a matter of perception, but it is a true problem in the health service and in access to insurance services. I hope that he agrees that, having introduced winter fuel payments and free bus passes, it would be very sad if notices suddenly went up saying, "No old people here."

Gordon Brown: The Government will publish our response to the consultation on discrimination law later this month, and we propose to have an equalities Bill in the Queen's Speech when it is published later this year. I agree with my hon. Friend: 1.2 million people now work beyond state pension age and many over-60s need protection in law. That is why, in 2006, we introduced legislation to outlaw age discrimination in employment and vocational training, and it is why he can look forward to the proposals from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Angus MacNeil: The Prime Minister might want to watch "Truth, Lies, Oil and Scotland" on the BBC tonight—a programme about Scotland's oil, which is not even at its peak. But may I give the Prime Minister another truth? My constituents in Lewis, Harris, Uist and Bara are paying the greatest fuel tax in the UK, with fuel priced at £1.40 a litre—about £6.50 a gallon. Will he give some of the £4.4 billion fuel windfall to offset the cost of fuel by 3 per cent. in the Scottish islands—something that he has already agreed to do for areas of rural France?

Gordon Brown: It is precisely because Scotland is part of the United Kingdom that there are 200,000 more people in employment in Scotland today than there were 10 years ago. Just as Scotland benefits from all the measures that we have taken to deal with fuel poverty, so, too, is North sea oil part of the revenues of the United Kingdom. I will fight to defend the Union of the United Kingdom and I hope that all other parties—except the nationalists—will continue to do so as well.

David Crausby: The hospice in my Bolton constituency wants to take part in a national hospice lottery draw, but is prevented from doing so by the limits on proceeds in the Gambling Act 2005. Will my right hon. Friend take a sympathetic look at the legislation to allow hospices across the country to raise funds and deliver their extremely valuable work?

Gordon Brown: The 2005 Act made it possible to double the limits on society lottery proceeds to £10 million over the course of a year and £2 million for an individual lottery. I know that the Lotteries Council and the Hospice Lotteries Association submitted a request to the Sports Minister to change those limits and we will consider that proposal, but I remind my hon. Friend that the amount that can be raised has been doubled. We continue to want to do all we can, both in Government finance and in helping charitable fundraising, for this country's great hospice movement.

Shailesh Vara: Given the Prime Minister's keen interest in constitutional matters, what is his view of the strong possibility that there will be not merely one but two unelected Prime Ministers in this Parliament?

Gordon Brown: Again, the hon. Gentleman had a chance to ask about employment, the health service or transport. The more important issue is what we do for our constituents. That is what I shall continue to do.

Howard Stoate: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many of our most prestigious sporting clubs, which have millions of young supporters, are sponsored by alcohol firms. Given the evidence that young people's alcohol intake is influenced by advertising, will he take this opportunity to organise a review of alcohol advertising in sport, especially in the light of the welcome publication this week of the youth alcohol action plan?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend has great experience as a doctor and I praise him for the work that he has done in the medical profession. I agree with him that all sports should take a responsible approach to alcohol advertising. The Portman Group, which brings the drinks companies together, has agreed to place a voluntary ban on advertising on children's football shirts, and we are undertaking a review of the relationship between the price of alcohol, promotion and harm. The very issues my hon. Friend raises will be dealt with as part of that review.

James Paice: Two and a half years ago, as Chancellor, the Prime Minister signed a policy statement, which said that domestic food production was neither necessary nor a sufficient condition for food security. Given all the meetings that he has had on the subject, does he still agree with that—yes or no?

Gordon Brown: We are a trading nation and we benefit from our ability to trade with the rest of the world, and food imports and exports will always be part of what we do. I do not think that anybody believes that one country on its own, operating in a global economy, will produce all the kinds of food that it needs. We should get a trade agreement so that we can get food prices down and deal with the food shortages by encouraging production in other parts of the world. We must also look at the eco-fuel issue, which many people have raised as being a diversion from food production, but we are part of a global economy and we should accept that as a reality.

Clive Betts: When responding to my constituents, who rightly raise concerns about the rising cost of living, does the Prime Minister agree that I should remind them of not only the practical steps that the Government are taking to help people on low incomes with their fuel bills, but the fundamental strength of our economy, compared with the crisis that we faced 20 years ago? That strength has enabled cities such as Sheffield not only to regenerate its local economy but, most of all, to create in one city, in the past 10 years alone, 72,000 new jobs. That has happened through the policies of the Labour Government.

Gordon Brown: Even in the past year, under difficult economic circumstances, 500,000 new jobs have been created in this country. People will at some time have a choice between whether to go with the policies of the Leader of the Opposition, who was economic adviser to the Government who created 15 per cent. interest rates, 3 million unemployed, the biggest tax rises in history and, at the same time, negative equity, and a Labour Government who have got more people in work than ever.

Points of Order

Robert Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? Just after the Queen's Speech, you made an announcement about the need for Members to abide by the parliamentary convention that they should not interfere in other Members' constituencies. On 25 January, Lord Adonis came to my constituency and, on 1 February, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families also came. They both visited schools in my constituency. I was not made aware of the visits and I understand from leaflets that were put out in the constituency that they were there on the encouragement of Mr. Stephen Twigg, who wishes to unseat me at the next election.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. However, I have said on previous occasions, and I reiterate it now, that when Ministers intend to come to a constituency, they should write to the hon. Member concerned and show them the courtesy of letting them know that they are going to be in the constituency. Of course, they do not need to ask the permission of a Member of Parliament to come into the constituency, but they must notify them. That is the convention, which should be adhered to. I will not be drawn into the argument about motives.

Robert Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What advice applies to the Prime Minister when he visits a constituency to hold a meeting? Should the Prime Minister also notify us of his visit?

Mr. Speaker: All Ministers of the Crown should do that.

Bank Holiday (Contribution of Polish Citizens)

Daniel Kawczynski: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a bank holiday to celebrate the contribution of Polish citizens to Great Britain since 1940.
	When invasion came to Poland in 1939, there was terrible suffering by the Poles. On that first day, 1 September 1939, many Polish aircraft were destroyed on the ground, in the German forces' dastardly attack. But those Polish pilots did not just give up; they came to this country to continue the struggle against fascism. Some 145 Polish pilots defended the skies during the battle of Britain. Polish 303 Fighter Squadron claimed the highest number of kills of any squadron during the second world war. In total, eight Polish fighter squadrons formed within the RAF claimed 629 axis aircraft destroyed by May 1945. Older citizens of this country remember those brave airmen and their gallantry, but it is difficult for people of my generation to remember their contribution. I hope that my Bill will remind them.
	We must also remember that the breaking of the Enigma codes was critical to our victory in the second world war. Polish cryptographers played a leading role in the project at Bletchley Park, a fact not generally known. Later today, I shall donate a book to the Library on the role that Polish cryptographers played at Bletchley. According to the Foreign Office, 45 per cent. of all intelligence reports from continental Europe came from Polish informants. Many of those brave Poles were sent back to Poland by the British security forces to spy on the Germans and to bring valuable information back to Britain about armaments production and all the other things that the Germans were doing. Poles fought with the British in Monte Cassino, north Africa and Arnhem. Britain let them stay after the second world war and they have contributed ever since.
	Now we face a new wave of immigration into this country from Poles. They are young, energetic, hard-working people. They are builders, plumbers and decorators; they pick our fruit and vegetables in the fields; they are doctors and engineers. We will not see many Poles on the dole or breaking the law. Most Poles are extremely hard working and law-abiding, and make a tremendous contribution to this country. However, we are now reaching the point at which more Poles are returning home than are coming to this country. When they go, we will miss them dearly.
	I have come in for a lot of criticism for introducing my Bill, from various people, but the reason I am doing so is that nine out of 10 immigrants to this country are not Poles or even eastern Europeans; they are from further afield—Africa, the West Indies and the Indian sub-continent. Yet the liberal elite of the BBC constantly refer to immigration from Poland, using the Polish community as a cat's-paw to try to tackle to the thorny issue of mass unchecked immigration into our country. [Hon. Members: "Rubbish!"] That elite realise that immigration has become uncontrolled and needs to be discussed, but they will not dare to refer to controversial immigration from other parts, always referring repeatedly to Polish immigration. I have undertaken a study of BBC coverage of immigration. Those hon. Members shouting, "Rubbish!" would be amazed at the amount of BBC coverage that focuses on white, Christian Poles because it is politically correct to do so.
	I am also appalled by Trevor Phillips of the Commission for Racial Equality. If what is being done to Poles was being done to a black or other ethnic minority group, it would simply not be tolerated. I demand that the Commission for Racial Equality also focus on white ethnic minorities in this country, so that nobody is penalised or made to feel like a scapegoat. As chairman of the Conservative Friends of Poland group, I have come across many cases pointing to increased violence towards Poles in this country. I am convinced that that is a result of the media coverage by the BBC.
	I feel extremely passionately about the issue. As a person of Polish origin, I have tried not to abuse my position here in the House of Commons to focus on Poles, yet I feel compelled to speak out because of my deep concern about how Polish immigration is being covered in the media.
	On many occasions, I have spoken to you, Mr. Speaker, about the Polish community. You showed great courtesy and kindness to me in the remarks that you made. You spoke to me about the fact that, as a young boy, you went to mass in your parish, conducted by a Polish chaplain who was there to look after the Polish officers who had stayed in Scotland after the war. Your support and comfort mean more to me than you will ever know. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter in the Commons.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) is entitled to come to the House to ask us to recognise the contribution made by Poles in this country. I unreservedly do so. I am not of Polish origin, although my sister-in-law comes from a Polish family. I have many Polish constituents and I have Polish friends. I was at school with Polish youngsters in mid-Wales, where they had settled, as they did in other parts of the country. However, I do not think it a well conceived idea to introduce a Bill to give a bank holiday to recognise one group of people, however eminent, who came and served alongside us in this country. I would like the House to reflect on how we ought really to deal with this matter, but deal with it in a different way.
	There is no doubting the bravery of the Poles in wartime. They had a special role in our services, especially the Air Force, and they are rightly commemorated. The Poles were not the only people who came from eastern Europe to help in the war. The Czechs also supplied brave people. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, people of other countries—not eastern Europe, but other parts of Europe—specifically came and helped in our struggles. In particular, the Norwegians and the Dutch came to help us in our time of need during the last war.
	There are people whom we could recognise as having served us in those dark days from 1940 to 1945, but there are others who came from different parts of the world and gave fantastic military service, such as people from many of the islands of the Caribbean. Large numbers of people from India and what are now Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka served in our forces. People from most African countries in the empire—not just South Africa, but the poorest countries such as Sierra Leone—served with great distinction. People from other parts of the world also came. If we were to recognise people who were not British born but who came and served with us, there would be a host of nations that we ought to recognise together.
	Since the war, people have come here and made a fantastic contribution in peacetime. Many people whose countries are not members of the European Union but who are European citizens have lived here for 20, 30 or 40 years and contributed, but they are not entitled to full EU rights. Norwegians are such an example.
	There are people who have served alongside us in other conflicts, some well conceived and others less so. The French and the Israelis were with us in the Suez conflict. Whether that was a good place to be, history will tell. There are probably a dozen other major countries from all over the world that are with us in Afghanistan to this day, and contributing—for example, the Baltic states, Ukraine and Denmark provide troops. Again, there are others who are assisting in the protection of British interests around the world. People have come from all over the world to do the building, the plumbing and all those other things.
	If we are to recognise immigrants in Britain, let us do so, but let us remember, too, the breadth of immigration. Immigrants have come from almost every country in the world. I am privileged to represent a constituency that probably contains people from every country. The other day at my surgery, for the first time I spoke to a woman from the Comoros islands, which indicates the range of people who come here.
	We need to be careful when we get into the debate on immigration. To my knowledge, no party has ever argued for uncontrolled immigration. No party has ever considered that to be a responsible attitude. There are different ways of dealing with immigration, and certainly it could be dealt with better. We all accept the need for controls. However, it is obviously wrong to have a go at legal immigrants in this country.
	I want to pay a tribute. Were it not for immigrants from Poland, eastern Europe, Africa, Asia and the rest of the world, most of our public services would not function and, in truth, much of the private sector would not function either. If there is a case for recognising immigrants, let us do so, but let us do the same for those who served us in wartime and those who serve us in peacetime.
	If the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham wants to engage in a debate about bank holidays, there is a debate to be had. I have long argued that there should be a St George's day bank holiday in England, a St David's day public holiday in Wales and a St Andrew's day public holiday in Scotland as well as the St Patrick's day holiday in Northern Ireland. There are four other obvious candidates for celebration: Commonwealth day on the second Monday in March—we could rightfully celebrate that as a holiday—VE day in May, United Nations day in October, and Human Rights day in December. There are plenty of causes for celebration and for another bank holiday, but, however much I understand his personal commitment, I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that to single out one nation and its contribution for one specific recognition would not be in the interests of either the Polish community or the other communities in the United Kingdom.
	I shall not seek to divide the House on whether the hon. Gentleman should have leave to bring in his Bill, but if he managed to get it as far as a Second Reading debate I would vote against it. I believe that we should be much more inclusive and not so specific in recognising people in this country who come from elsewhere and have contributed so much in peace and in war.
	 Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Daniel Kawczynski, Mr. John Battle, Greg Mulholland, Ann Winterton, David Wright, John Bercow, Mr. Denis MacShane, Stephen Pound, Mrs. Nadine Dorries and Dr. Alan Whitehead.

Bank Holiday (contribution of Polish Citizens)

Mr. Daniel Kawczynski accordingly presented a Bill to establish a bank holiday to celebrate the contribution of Polish citizens to Great Britain since 1940: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 October, and to be printed [Bill 114].

Dan Norris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the Leader of the Opposition asked his question about vehicle excise tax during Prime Minister's Question Time, should he not have declared that he had received a donation from a Bournemouth motor company, Jacksons?

Mr. Speaker: Donations are a matter for individual Members, and I should not be drawn into it.

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[13th Allotted Day]

Volunteering

Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister for the second debate.

Francis Maude: I beg to move,
	That this House welcomes National Volunteering Week and the publication of the report of the Morgan Inquiry; recognises the outstanding contribution made by volunteers to what, sixty years ago, William Beveridge called 'the vigour and abundance of voluntary action...which are the distinguishing marks of a free society'; notes that every week millions of people volunteer their time for others, providing indispensable personal care and attention in all of Britain's communities; emphasises the continuing importance of volunteering even as the voluntary sector expands its paid workforce and takes on the delivery of public services; further notes that some voluntary organisations experience shortages of volunteers in key positions; supports the call of the Commission for the Future of Volunteering for 'volunteering to become part of the DNA of our society'; congratulates employers who encourage and make time available for their employees to volunteer; and urges the Government to address the bureaucratic barriers that lie between volunteers and volunteering.
	The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is currently abroad, and the Minister has courteously explained his reasons for not being present. On behalf of the Conservatives, let me say that we regard the Minister as a more than adequate substitute, and look forward to hearing him speak at both ends of the debate if the House consents to that course.
	Everyone is in favour of volunteering. This could turn out to be one of those debates in which there is a serious danger of violent agreement breaking out. It is good to see that no amendment has been tabled to our motion, which I think will be seen as a positive development by the world of volunteering. It will see the House, as would be expected, responding to national volunteering week in a unified and consensual way.
	This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Beveridge report on voluntary action, in which he said that
	"the vigour and abundance of voluntary action...are the distinguishing marks of a free society".
	He is often described as the architect of the welfare state and is sometimes thought of as the apostle of stateism, but he was by no means that. He was a passionate advocate of the benefit to society of what people do themselves.
	This is national volunteering week, as I said, which I am sure is why the Chamber is relatively empty. I am sure that hon. Members are taking part in voluntary activities. [Hon. Members: "Henley!"] My hon. Friends make the most ignoble suggestion that the voluntary activity—

Tom Levitt: That would not be voluntary.

Francis Maude: Exactly—but I digress.
	There have been three major reports, in quick succession, on volunteering: Baroness Neuberger's wide-ranging and excellent Commission on the Future of Volunteering; the Morgan inquiry, which looked at the barriers that discourage young people from volunteering; and, yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition launched our radical and groundbreaking policy paper on voluntary action in the 21st century. The latter is very much the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who has immersed himself in the subject for some years and is widely regarded in the sector as a serious authority on it.
	Every week, millions of people across Britain volunteer their time for others, providing indispensable personal care across the country. Less than half of those voluntary groups receive any income from Government, and most of them simply would not exist without the work of volunteers. A survey of 59 hospices has concluded that the value of volunteering to the hospice movement as a whole is £112 million, which is almost equal to the financial contribution of the NHS. It estimated that for every £1 spent on supporting volunteers, hospices receive a return worth more than £11, so there is a huge return on modest investment. Indeed, few investments can produce such a rich yield.
	Whole areas of community life would simply cease to exist without volunteering. Local sport is an obvious case in point, as 93 per cent. of sports clubs use volunteers. According to Sport England, volunteer coaches, officials, minibus drivers, match secretaries, umpires, treasurers, stewards and countless other helpers sustain more than 100,000 affiliated clubs with more than 8 million members. The annual contribution to sport is about 1 billion hours a year. The London Olympics, in 2012, will mobilise and rely on the energy of many hundreds of thousands of volunteers specifically for that event.
	We know that Britain stands well in international comparisons of volunteering. It is unclear exactly how much volunteering is done, as different studies show different numbers, but we are exceeded only by Norway, among comparable countries, on the number of people who do any volunteer work. About half of Norway's population are volunteers, compared with about 30 per cent. of ours. However, if one measures the number of volunteer hours rather than the number of volunteers, we slip down the ranks to fifth among comparable, developed nations. We compare rather less well with Sweden and the Netherlands, in particular, on the contribution that is made by volunteers. They are well ahead on volunteering as a share of gross domestic product. Those figures suggest that there are very different patterns in different countries, as one would expect.
	In Britain, lots of people do some volunteering, but a smaller proportion here than in other countries volunteer regularly. Volunteers are spread pretty evenly across age ranges, with no huge bias in any particular range. Women are twice as likely as men to volunteer, as are those who describe themselves as religious. The Charity Awareness Monitor independent quarterly review shows that except for a few shallow peaks and troughs, the level of volunteering has remained essentially unchanged at a little below 20 per cent. To add to that confused picture, while some volunteering organisations say that they are reaching saturation point, others warn of a shortage.

Henry Bellingham: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the excellent work being done by the third sector and volunteers in prisons and youth offender institutes? They are going in and helping youngsters, in particular, to rebuild their self-esteem. Above all, they are giving them the confidence to go out and find work when they leave prison. Is he aware that many volunteers are put off by the over-onerous and over-bureaucratic work of the Criminal Records Bureau, which puts in place obstacles that surely should not be quite as tight as they are?

Francis Maude: I shall come to exactly that concern. I was going to mention the work on penal reform and the incredibly important work that needs to be done to address our appalling rates on the reconviction and reimprisonment of prisoners. My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important point.
	Some parts of the volunteering sector have as many volunteers as they need, whereas others warn of a shortage. That indicates that episodic volunteering is flourishing, rather than the kind of long-term commitment that most volunteering organisations seek. Youth organisations such as the Scouts and Guides are, happily, growing fast, but they are finding it hard to recruit enough leaders to cope with the serious growth in the number of young people who want to take part in those activities.
	There have also been shortages in the public service. The number of special constables has dropped sharply in the past 10 years. The National Trust reports an increase in volunteer numbers but a decrease in the amount of time that the average volunteer can contribute. At the same time, there is evidence that some existing volunteers are taking on ever more responsibilities. It is not surprising that in a Volunteering England survey of charities, 86 per cent. of respondents said that their priority was to keep existing volunteers rather than to search for new recruits.
	A fantastic amount is being done, and nothing that we or any other party proposes should in any way diminish our recognition and celebration of that. Every volunteer whom I meet—I expect that other hon. Members have found the same—passionately wants more people to volunteer and volunteers to do more.

Tobias Ellwood: Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, whose headquarters are just outside my constituency? The RNLI is a great example of how a national charity can not only raise funds but perform an important service, rescuing up to 22 people a day. It succeeds because it is independent of Government interference.

Francis Maude: The RNLI is an amazing national institution that carries out a crucial public service in an exemplary way. My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point: the fact that the RNLI is able to raise that funding and to use volunteers to the extent that it does puts it in the happy position of being independent of government. The pluralism to which that contributes is a crucial part of a free and civil society. I am grateful to him for drawing attention to that point.

Ian Lucas: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a real challenge for volunteering in an era of high employment is encouraging people who are in work to do voluntary work? One of the most powerful ways of doing that is to persuade volunteers how much they can personally gain from volunteering.

Francis Maude: I totally agree, and I shall come to that point, which has been addressed in our policy paper that was published yesterday. There are great benefits not only for the employees who give their time to volunteer, but for employers. I shall return to that point towards the end of my speech.
	We support the Government's desire to build on what already exists, and we share many of their ambitions, but I want to look at their record. I do not want to be churlish or partisan, but there are some differences of approach that it would be only right to highlight in the debate. In recent years, there has been a bit of a tendency for Ministers to launch one "eye-catching initiative"—as Tony Blair used to describe them—after another to boost volunteer head count. There is a suspicion—these are not my words—that many of those initiatives amount to little more than a launch, a lunch and a logo. Despite the evidence that a culture of volunteering has to be grown from the bottom up, the Government have slightly tended to prefer a top-down approach involving high-profile Government initiatives. Rather than investing in the grass roots of volunteering, there has been a tendency to create more public bodies that, from the top, aim to change what happens.

Tom Levitt: I noticed that catchy phrase, "a launch, a lunch and a logo" on page 22 of the right hon. Gentleman's document. Will he give us some examples of initiatives that he thinks have failed in that sense?

Francis Maude: I am coming to exactly that point. An example would be the Experience Corps. A volunteering initiative was set up by the Government. It was aimed at retired people—a splendid objective—but it greatly underperformed in relation to its targets and was subsequently abandoned.

Tom Levitt: The right hon. Gentleman might not be aware that, in three weeks' time, I shall be hosting the annual event of the Experience Corps in the House. The organisation has certainly not been abandoned. When it was set up, it was intended to be a three-year programme, but it is now in its eighth year. It deals not only with retired people but with people over the age of 50. We have a problem with this year's event, in that it is significantly over-subscribed by hon. Members who are working with the Experience Corps to draw attention to the work of older volunteers in their constituencies. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to congratulate the Experience Corps, five years after Government support for it finished at the end of the programme, on still being a thriving and active organisation.

Francis Maude: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but my understanding is that the Experience Corps has not met the targets that were set for it, and that the Government have had to come back and chop and change in a way that has been disadvantageous. I am delighted that lots of our colleagues across the House are going to attend the event; that is very good news. However, that organisation is an example of the kind of top-down approach that does not always work.
	Another, more recent, example is v, another volunteering initiative with a splendid objective, aimed at young people. It is still establishing itself, and so far, its impact has inevitably been limited. I made a visit in my constituency that was set up by v in order to show me exactly what it did. I visited a voluntary organisation based in West Sussex, and I am afraid that I came away from it without any sense of what v was doing that added to an initiative that was already busy and successful. There were words rather than actions, and it was not clear that anything was going to be done in the future that was not already being done by that excellent organisation.

Tom Levitt: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I will leave him alone in just a moment. I hope that, in November, he will take part in an event in the House: v will invite Members of Parliament to bring young volunteers from their constituencies, so that we can come together to celebrate the work of young volunteers. There are new initiatives in my constituency and elsewhere that are being helped along by v. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bring a young volunteer from his constituency, with whom he has been working over the next few months, to that celebration later in the year.

Francis Maude: Of course I would be delighted to do so, but we all do this kind of thing all the time. I suspect that, every Friday in our constituencies, we are all visiting organisations in which young, middle-aged and old volunteers are doing fantastic work. We celebrate that all the time, and it is important that we should give our support in that way.

Alistair Burt: The hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) and I were members of Baroness Neuberger's commission, and he will know that, when we had the opportunity to discuss those matters with volunteers, v was raised by a number of those who were working with young people's organisations. They said that they were not quite sure why v was there or what it was adding. Perhaps, in time, that will change, but that concern was raised during the commission's work. It might be helpful to my right hon. Friend to know that the concerns that he is expressing have also been raised by others close to the coal face.

Francis Maude: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I should stress that, when I made that local visit, I went there almost wanting to be persuaded, really wanting to understand what was being done that had not previously been done, and why v was needed. I went with the most open mind in the world, but I could not see anything being done that would not otherwise have been done.

Iain Duncan Smith: The problem with these debates is that they often descend into a discussion on who celebrates the role of the voluntary sector the most. The truth is that all this is nonsense about celebrating the voluntary sector. I spend a lot of time with people who work in the sector—we are holding the awards for the Poverty Fighters Alliance in July, for example—and what they say, time and again, is, "Visits to the House of Commons and celebrations are okay, but just release us, give us the ability to find the money and let us get on with the job. We don't want to be celebrated; we want to celebrate the work that we do ourselves."

Francis Maude: Speaking of recognition, the House should recognise the work that my right hon. Friend has done, particularly through the Centre for Social Justice, which has been absolutely superb. It has promoted good practice and focused attention on what can be done when inspiring, dedicated people commit themselves to solving social challenges. He has done the country an enormous service in focusing on those issues in recent years. I totally take on board the point that he has made about what the people who run these organisations want—namely, to be allowed to get on with the job that they have been inspired to do.
	We have mentioned Baroness Neuberger's commission, on which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) served. The commission noted
	"a very large amount of criticism of several aspects of the Government's initiatives to promote volunteering",
	which focused on a
	"lack of joined-up thinking...poor communication...funding timescales...reporting and monitoring timescales...targets to the detriment of quality...quality and quantity of volunteering placements available".
	It concluded that
	"the depressing thing is that messages about short-termism and a project based approach that fails to become mainstream—all of which we have heard repeatedly—are not new."
	There are issues, and it is important that we seek to address them with an open spirit.
	There is an urgent need to promote volunteering, as well as other non-state activity, in what we believe to be the rather ill-named third sector. There is growing consensus across the political spectrum that the limit to the size of the taxpayer-funded state has been reached or exceeded. We read remarks by the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), and we see the Lib Dems' direction of travel; it is clear that there are no longer any serious advocates, outside the ranks of doctrinal statists, for the state as the answer to all social ills.
	Of course, there remain pressing social challenges for today's Britain. We think of the linking of family breakdown with crime and addiction, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) has done a huge amount to highlight. We already have the largest prison population in Europe, yet we can also see the appalling record of prisoners being reconvicted and imprisoned within two years of their release. We see 2.6 million people with disabilities on incapacity benefit, when so many could and would prefer to be in some sort of work. We see the pockets of acute poverty that still exist in too many parts of our country.
	Addressing those challenges requires active intervention, because in most cases the key to success is breaking the cycle of deprivation. That means treating each person individually and working with them in a holistic way to solve their problems. The state is not good at that.

David Burrowes: I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend for making the point about the importance of volunteers to criminal justice and about the concern in the community that we have important role models, not least male and young adult role models, who can lead young people into better ways. The Scout Association is an example of a group providing fine grassroots work, but it needs young adults to come through as volunteers. We need to provide flexibility and support to grassroots organisations to provide the work that will lead young people away from crime.

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend makes an important point very well. The Scouts are expanding, which is excellent, but they need the encouragement of new leaders and volunteers to come in and work with young people to provide exactly the sort of support that my hon. Friend mentioned, particularly male role models. Many boys and young men are growing up without a father in their lives and, in many cases, without any male teachers; the proportion of male teachers in primary schools is now down to 10 per cent. or so, and is 20 per cent. in secondary schools. There are lots of young men growing up without any male role models in their lives, which is a concern.
	The state is not good at that holistic treatment of the challenged individual—the individual with significant problems which society has a vested interest in solving—but voluntary organisations, charities and social enterprises are good at that. That is why our approach to these challenges unashamedly places emphasis on the role of an active and enlarged civil society.

Ian Lucas: I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman in what is an interesting debate. Does he agree that there is one very important role that the state must play, which is to provide a high level of sustained investment in the provision of services? Is not the reality that we have had a sustained level of high investment from the state in the voluntary sector over the past 11 years? Is he saying that his party would match that?

Francis Maude: When the hon. Gentleman has time to read our paper, he will see that one of our concerns is in regard to the compact, one of whose central tenets has been that, where voluntary, third sector organisations provide public services, there should be full cost recovery. As we know, that is much more honoured in the breach than in the observance. We are saying that there should be at least the possibility when that happens for voluntary and other organisations to make a surplus in what they do. Part of the problem is that it is much too difficult for really outstanding organisations that have found innovative and successful ways to address a particular problem to replicate that in different places in the way that a private sector organisation naturally would be able to do.
	The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the need for sustainable investment in these organisations and we draw attention to the amount of statutory funding for voluntary organisations and charities. The proportion that comes from grants versus contracts has crossed over, so a smaller proportion is now coming from grants. That impinges on the independence of those organisations, which is their lifeblood, makes them distinctive and enables them to do their fantastic work.

Daniel Kawczynski: On finance, in Shropshire many volunteers are senior citizens and people on very low incomes. They play a vital role as volunteers, but owing to a lack of support from the Government to Shropshire county council, the council is struggling to give those people enough money to pay for their mileage in covering very large distances in a rural county such as Shropshire.

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend makes an important point.

Tom Levitt: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point about full cost recovery. Clearly, both sides wish to see a relationship where services are delivered in common, where common aims exist and where there is a professional relationship between the third sector and the public sector, but one of the problems with full cost recovery has often been the inability of third sector organisations to judge properly the full cost element. They are building up that experience over time. Throughout his document, the right hon. Gentleman decries the professionalisation of the sector. It seems to me that we cannot keep the values of amateurism while being good in terms of administration and accountancy.

Francis Maude: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says and I am delighted that he has had the chance to look at our document, but he is wrong to say that we decry professionalisation. We talk about it and say that the lessons of growing professionalisation are unclear. If we are to see the sort of growth in the sector that we believe to be essential for the strength of our society, organisations need to be efficient and professionally run. We do not have the slightest problem with that.

Iain Duncan Smith: There is a real nub to this debate and my right hon. Friend has touched on it now: whether or not the state sees the voluntary sector as an add-on to the work it does, or as a viable, separate entity that it will help and support in the areas where it works. When Beveridge designed what we call the welfare state, he wrote a third paper in response to the introduction of the welfare state by the then Labour Government. He warned that the voluntary sector would be subsumed into the welfare state, instead of being viable and separate in its own right. Think of the private sector: write off vast sums of money from small businesses in taxation and do not ask them to pay the money back when they fail. They get huge write-offs. When it comes to the voluntary sector, we say, "There is only a year's contract. Give us full cost recovery. If you can't do that, goodbye."

Francis Maude: My right hon. Friend makes the point powerfully and he is absolutely right. That is what is meant by having an active civil society, which is thriving and vibrant.  [ Interruption. ] The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position about Victorian society. I notice that he made a rather intemperate, knee-jerk response to our paper yesterday, plainly without having read it. I am hearing a rather more moderate and thoughtful response from his Back-Bench colleagues. I do not want to be partisan. This is a good debate without particular doctrinal differences, but we need to explore differences of approach, which are important. If the approach is, as ours is, that to address many of these powerful social challenges requires the work of third sector organisations, voluntary organisations, charities and social enterprises, the question properly to be raised is, "Where will the additional capacity come from?"
	Is it simply enough to hope that 100 flowers will suddenly and spontaneously bloom? The truth is that new flowers are coming into bloom all the time. This is generally about a person or group of people who see a problem and have an idea as to how to solve it, but too often these flowers wither and too rarely do they seed themselves and multiply.
	We have been seeking to address those challenges in our paper published yesterday. We have set out a Conservative alternative that we believe can boost volunteering as a central pillar of the regrowth of civil society. We believe that it can contribute to a vibrant culture of giving and volunteering. Our proposals reflect wide-ranging discussions with charities, voluntary groups and social enterprises as well as the input from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green's policy group and the party's social enterprise taskforce. I am sorry that the Minister's knee-jerk reaction to our paper yesterday was to trash it, rather as Sir Clive Booth, the Labour chairman of the Big Lottery Fund, attacked our proposals for the reform of the lottery before they had even been published. He then had to retract his remarks, which were profoundly inaccurate. We look to the Minister to do the same today when he stands up.
	Our ideas are very much drawn from what leaders in the sector have argued, and the Government would do well to learn from that. Notably, the comments that people in the sector have made in response to our papers have been uniformly positive, in sharp contrast to what the Minister said yesterday and what he seems still to be planning to say today.

Jamie Reed: I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks with interest, and, to my regret, I read the paper last night. On the charities' response to the Conservative proposals, how does he respond to NCH's excoriating analysis of Conservative proposals in respect of single parents and jobless people, particularly those in the north-west of England?

Francis Maude: I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman has made, but it is certainly not relevant to this debate, nor does it come out of anything in the paper that we published yesterday. If he wants to raise those questions later in the debate, I am sure that the House will listen with great respect to what he has to say.
	Our ideas draw heavily on what the sector itself has argued, and we make a number of proposals. They can be found in the document, and I do not need to go through them all today, given that I have taken up much more time than I intended and that I am aware that many hon. Members want to participate in the debate. I shall, however, mention one or two of them. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) has mentioned, one is our support for the long overdue moves being made to improve the Criminal Records Bureau checks system. Such moves have been recommended. We know that confidence and morale can be destroyed by bureaucratic hurdles and burdens. It is important to understand that Britain—society—will lose volunteers who are fired up and enthused, and who want to get on with things, if they find themselves parked for weeks while the bureaucracy creaks its way through the checks, because, all too often, the moment will have passed, the spark may have died and the enthusiasm may have waned.

Jeremy Wright: This follows up the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk made. There clearly must be a case for simplifying and speeding up the CRB process. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given cases such as that of a constituent of mine who underwent all kinds of checks to enable him to be employed at a young offenders institution, only to be told that he would need another CRB check when he approached the Scouts to offer to help on a Thursday night, we should, at the very least, ensure that one check will suffice for all similar activity?

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend is right. It is painful, it kills the spark and it takes the edge off things when people who are fired up and want to get on with volunteering are suddenly told, "You can't do anything for five weeks because we have to go through this whole process."
	We will also act to clear up any remaining confusion surrounding the rules on volunteering and benefit claimants, so that misunderstandings on that front do not dissuade potential volunteers. We also want to exclude any notion of compulsory volunteering, which is, of course, a contradiction in terms. There is a sense that the Government, frustrated by the failure of their volunteering campaigns to deliver the growth for which they hoped, are displaying a bit of a tendency towards making volunteering compulsory in some circumstances. There is a hint of that in the Education and Skills Bill, which proposes volunteering as an enforced alternative to work or education—even v, the Government's own youth volunteering organisation, is aghast at that. We are also concerned at the apparent Home Office plan to force volunteering on new immigrants as part of its probationary citizenship scheme.
	We will encourage and promote a new environment conducive to volunteering. We believe that there needs to be more of a culture change to create a social norm that volunteering is what people do—so many people already do it. Indeed, the Commission on the Future of Volunteering referred to
	"a culture change in society so that helping others and benefiting from a culture of mutual dependence becomes a way of life".
	We would say that that is social responsibility in action. All the evidence tells us that volunteering is infectious: people who volunteer in one capacity in their community generally end up helping lots of other community groups as well. A study for the Scout Association found that young people who are members of a youth or sports club are twice as likely to have helped out in their community as those who are not.
	Meanwhile, many pioneering companies—this deals with the point raised by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas)—from John Lewis to KPMG, have begun to establish volunteering as a social norm of working life. They give their employees an entitlement to volunteer, and a small number of hours that they can use during the year to add to their own time spent volunteering. KPMG, for example, allows each employee 3.5 hours of firm time per month to volunteer, and last year, KPMG people contributed more than 38,000 hours to the community. The company recognised that their volunteering commitment is a major factor in giving it a competitive edge in retaining vital staff and recruiting the top people of tomorrow. Therefore, that is an important point.
	As we know, social norms cannot be legislated for, but the Government can lead by example. I would like to refer to a final proposal today. The Conservatives would make a start by allowing every central Government employee eight hours' volunteering during employed time a year. That is perhaps not a huge amount, but when one adds up all the hours, one finds that it amounts to a big contribution. I applaud the Government for being very ready to pick up our ideas in recent months, so there is one that we have prepared. What a great contribution to national volunteering week it would be if the Minister were to announce in his speech that that is yet another Conservative idea that the Government intend to implement. I commend the motion to the House.

Phil Hope: I very much welcome this debate. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) evinced from me a combination of laughter, when he made claim to a raft of proposals that the Government are already putting into practice, and despair—at the proposals that the Conservatives are bringing forward. Although I did not agree with everything in his speech—I shall pick up on some of those areas in a moment—we are voting on a motion to support volunteering, and on that I very much agree.
	My right hon. Friends and I welcome the interest shown in volunteering by the Conservative party, although some interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) on examples associated with older people's volunteering and youth volunteering would suggest that there remains a need for the right hon. Member for Horsham, and the Opposition, to play catch-up on the marvellous things going on around the country, which are supported by both central and local government in many ways.
	Like me, hon. Members across the House will want to praise the work of volunteers around the country, particularly given that this is national volunteering week. We can all welcome, too, the healthy state of charities in general. The motion rightly points out that this debate takes place
	"as the voluntary sector expands its paid workforce and takes on the delivery of public services".
	The Conservative paper published yesterday says that "we are doing well" on volunteering, that we are
	"second out of 36 countries"
	on one measure and that Britain is "leading most of Europe" on charitable giving. That is absolutely right. Indeed, I think that the right hon. Gentleman said that a fantastic amount is being done, and it is great to know that the Opposition are celebrating the success of this Labour Government in supporting and promoting volunteering and the third sector.

Francis Maude: The Minister makes a slightly glib point, but it illustrates an unhelpful premise in his mind: that what ordinary people are doing up and down the country in giving their time is somehow something for which the Government should take credit. People do this despite the Government, not because of them, and they have been doing it for much longer than new Labour has been in existence.

Phil Hope: The right hon. Gentleman did say that he did not want to be churlish in this debate, but he has just demonstrated how he has given up on that ambition.
	As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, despite the pressures of work and family, and the rush of modern life, millions of Britons—the previous survey suggested a figure of 20 million—give up their time to help others. It is right that, across the House, we say that British society is not an "elbows culture". The headlines about problems in neighbourhoods do not tell the whole story, because people in Britain do care about their neighbours and, both formally and informally, through voluntary organisations and in other ways, they contribute their time and their money to make our society a better place to live.

Ian Lucas: Does my hon. Friend agree that people who do charitable work need the tools to do it? One of the most important tools that the Government provide is investment. There has been a substantial increase in the charitable sector thanks to sustained Government investment. The sooner the Conservatives accept that and recognise that it is part of the reason for the success of the charitable sector, the better.

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is right. It is because the Government have acted in partnership with the third sector and listened to their concerns. We have responded, through direct investment and by creating an environment in which the third sector—charities, voluntary organisations, small local community groups and social enterprises, the whole panoply—can thrive, be dynamic and make progress in the future. I shall say more about the nature of the investment that the Government have put in and the outcomes that it has had in a moment.
	It is through volunteering that neighbourhoods are drawn together. Knowledge is the best, surest weapon against prejudice, and shared activities that bring together the old and the young, people of different ethnic backgrounds and people with different levels of education, are among the surest ways to dispel assumptions and reduce tensions in our communities.

David Burrowes: Can the Minister be specific about how much of the £75 million investment in v has had an impact on actual volunteering in projects involving young people?

Phil Hope: I will address that point directly later in my speech.
	Volunteering is not only about building stronger communities and neighbourhoods. Volunteering can transform the prospects of volunteers themselves. We have all met volunteers who learn as much as they teach, or are helped as much as they helped, whether the volunteer is someone moving from a long period of unemployment—former users of services can become volunteers and, in some cases, paid staff members—or a high-flying professional who volunteers and sees a different side of life. Many people from the City are now moving into third sector organisations and transferring their skills, and they gain hugely rewarding experiences in becoming leaders and chief executives in the third sector.

Tom Levitt: My hon. Friend will have noticed the recognition of the value of training in the voluntary sector on page 30 of the Conservative document. It states:
	"It's essential that such a system is of practical value to volunteers and is fully owned and controlled by the voluntary sector."
	Does he agree that what is really important is that skills acquired by volunteers should be transferable and part of an overall training gateway or network that is not confined to the sector, but allows people to progress and take their skills with them because they are recognised by industry and others?

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend's experience and knowledge in these matters, and his contribution to the charity world, the third sector and volunteering, are unsurpassed in this House. He speaks with great authority and knowledge about how developing the skills of those who work for and volunteer with the third sector—and the public and private sectors—has enormous benefits, both individually and to the nation, because those skills can be transferred. Such training can improve the ability of the third sector to deliver the aim of creating better outcomes for users, but it can also enable individuals to make a wider contribution to community life. He is right to highlight that benefit of volunteering.
	Our thriving culture of volunteering cannot be taken for granted, and we must take some important steps to secure it for the future. I wish to use this opportunity to say that we must encourage volunteering by making volunteering easier, by actively supporting volunteers and by using the leadership of the public sector. Volunteering does not happen in a vacuum. It is informed by other debates, and I will go on to say what we can learn from the silence on those debates from the Conservative party.
	We have been listening to the sector and working with it to make volunteering easier. We have heard concerns about criminal records checks and we consulted with the sector and across Government. In March, we promised that we would look at how to make the checks easier. Today, I am delighted to say, we published guidance that makes it clear that CRB checks are not always necessary. When volunteers do need a criminal records check—as is often right, when they will be working with children or other vulnerable groups—those checks are free. Volunteers are not charged for CRB checks, and last year that saved organisations involving volunteers more than £26 million.

Jeremy Wright: I raised this point with my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). I understand the Minister's point and it is generally accepted that CRB checks are necessary for those who work with children, but surely it is not necessary to require multiple checks for the same individual when they wish to work in the same general field. Can the Minister reassure us that part of his changes will include a considerable streamlining of that process?

Phil Hope: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Section 5 of the guidance document, entitled "The portability of CRB checks", sets out in detail when it might be necessary to carry out a new CRB check. There is a simple template and an eight-point checklist that organisations can use to address that issue, so that they and volunteers will know where they stand.
	We have removed one barrier with the requirement for multiple CRB checks, but the sector also told us about the problem of volunteers being left out of pocket. So in March we introduced the Employment Bill in the other place—it will shortly be considered in this House—to change the law to allow voluntary workers to claim expenses such as travel and child care without triggering the national minimum wage legislation. That is a major step forward.
	In 2006, we also took action to change benefit rules to lift any barriers to volunteering by people receiving benefits. We ensured that they could be reimbursed any reasonable expenses when they volunteer, and that move was greatly welcomed by the sector. The chief executive of Volunteering England, Justin Davis Smith, said that
	"this is great news as it lifts a barrier to the two million volunteers on benefits who were affected by the guidance".

Alistair Burt: During the commission's work, we picked up on continuing misunderstanding about the position of volunteers on benefits, so can the Minister reassure the House on the question of how the changes are being monitored? The feeling was that they are not being universally applied in the way that the Government would want, and that misunderstanding creates a barrier in places where the rules are not as effective as they could be.

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is one thing to change the rules to ensure that individuals on benefits can continue to volunteer and claim expenses, but the guidance needs to get out to every single jobcentre and organisation that uses volunteers, who also need to know the rules themselves. We do need a good communications campaign. Part of my job as champion for the third sector in Government is to ensure that when that does not happen I talk to ministerial colleagues, Departments and others to ensure that they understand and implement the new Government policy.
	We welcome the report by Baroness Morgan, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Horsham, on volunteering by people on benefits. It includes further ideas and suggestions. We will consider them and see what more we can do to ensure that we ease volunteering into the role of a route into work for workless people. Many of us can think of projects and examples where that has been the case.
	When it comes to expenses, benefits and CRB checks, volunteering is getting easier, but if one listens to the right hon. Members for Horsham and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) one would sometimes think that the only thing the state should do is get out of the way. Those are almost the same words as were used earlier. I do not agree.
	That takes me to my second point. We need actively to support volunteers and the small voluntary organisations that bring them together. Let me say how. Often, volunteers work for very small community organisations—we all have examples in our constituencies—often with no paid member of staff and little or no access to funds. For those very small volunteer-led community projects, a small amount of money can make a huge difference. That is why we now have a new programme, announced in last year's Budget, to provide small grants to the smallest community organisations. The grassroots grants scheme will give grants of between £250 and £5,000 over the next three years to small volunteer-led organisations based in the heart of our communities. In July, we will announce the local partners who will give out the money, and I hope to see the first grants go out to those community groups in the autumn.
	Embedded in the programme is an endowment component. Part of the money for the grassroots grants will create new endowments in every area of the country. That is a fundamentally new approach that has not been taken before by any Government and will create a sustainable source of small grant funding in every area of the country. The endowment funds will never be spent, but the interest generated by them will provide a supply of small grants to small community groups in every part of the country. That is an extraordinary new and ambitious way forward, and I hope that it has the support of the House.
	Volunteers are often deeply rooted in their community. That is what makes them so effective. They do not always hear about the best ways to recruit other volunteers and to ensure they are used effectively. That is why in November 2007, as part of an overall £11 billion a year investment in education, employment and training, the Government opened up the flagship Train to Gain skills programme not only to paid staff of voluntary organisations but to volunteers. I want to use the debate to encourage all third sector organisations to access the Train to Gain funding pool to help to upskill their staff and volunteers.
	Last March, we announced £4 million to train volunteers and those who manage them. That is why our GoldStar programme, which started in 2005, is working nationally and locally to spread good practice in volunteer management, going out to local and voluntary sector groups and providing them with training and support. I want to pay tribute to Baroness Neuberger for her work with the independent Commission on the Future of Volunteering—members of the commission have already spoken in the debate—which has drawn attention to these issues. She is a tireless champion for volunteering and is viewed with huge respect—some would say fear—across this House and in the wider volunteering community.
	Not only small grants and training but active support can be needed when people want to volunteer but need an extra bit of help to do so. If someone is disabled, has no formal qualifications or faces other barriers, they can be left trapped and isolated without a helping hand. That is why Government programmes such as Volunteering for All are so important. They help to dispel the myth that volunteering is "Not for people like me", spreading the message that volunteering is truly for all and that it should become part of the DNA of our society.
	Our most significant investment is in the future of volunteering. Strong habits—such as volunteering, taking responsibility and taking part in the community—are best started early, so over three years the Government are investing £117 million in the independent charity v. The remarks made earlier by the right hon. Member for Horsham, which were critical, were unwise and, as he must know, inaccurate. So far, v has created more than 210,000 volunteering opportunities and it plans to deliver more than 500,000 more in the coming years—I hope that answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes). That is a way in which we can encourage hundreds of thousands of young people to engage in a variety of youth-led projects and initiatives across the country, to get involved in their communities and to make a difference. Once they have that habit, I think that they will keep it for the rest of their lives.
	It is important that we reward and recognise the contribution made by volunteers. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green was wrong to say that we should not recognise and celebrate the work of volunteers, although I do not think that he quite meant it in that way. I was at Buckingham palace only a few days ago to watch the volunteers and groups of volunteers receive the Queen's award for voluntary service. Those awards were presented by the Queen, and other members of the royal family were present, and those who came to the awards were over the moon at the recognition of the value of the contribution made by those often unsung heroes. Although it is not the only thing that we should do, we should not underestimate the importance of giving such recognition to individuals who play a part in their communities.

Iain Duncan Smith: I did not say that volunteers should not be rewarded. I said that debates in the House tend to be about who celebrates them more. The truth is that they do not need that much celebration from politicians. They need a lot of action to help free them up to get on with things on the ground. That was my point.

Phil Hope: Let us hope that we can agree on that one. We should be doing more; that was the next point I wanted to mention. Volunteers need freedom, with as little bureaucracy as possible, but they also need active support: small grants, training, and help for those who face barriers. They also need leadership from the public sector.

Paul Truswell: Before the Minister leaves the point about on-the-ground assistance to small voluntary organisations, will he deal with this point? I am sure that he will accept and appreciate the huge contribution that community amateur sports clubs make to local communities by encouraging participation in healthy pastimes, particularly for young people, who are diverted from antisocial behaviour. Will he join those Members, some of whom are in the Chamber today, who are campaigning for tax relief on junior sports club contributions?

Phil Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I regret the fact that as a Member of the Government I am unable to speak on behalf of the Chancellor, but my hon. Friend has made a powerful point that I am sure will be heard in the Treasury as a proposal for encouraging more people to volunteer, not least in the world of sport. Volunteers in sport and the arts play a huge role through not only increased participation, but the wider benefits that that participation brings. Young people become engaged, gain greater skills and are diverted from antisocial behaviour into social behaviour. They learn to gain skills and self-confidence as a result. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the wider benefits of volunteering in a range of ways.

Andy Reed: Will the Minister give way?

Phil Hope: Yes, I will. My hon. Friend has a track record of campaigning on behalf of the world of sport and volunteers in sport that is second to none.

Andy Reed: Follow that, as they say. I chair the national strategic partnership for volunteers in sport, which represents 3 million to 5 million sports volunteers across the country. Does the Minister recognise that most organisations that are set up to look after the voluntary sector do not necessary regard sport as part of the traditional voluntary sector, and vice versa? Most of us in sport tend to regard ourselves as helpers rather than volunteers, so some of the structures do not quite match. I know that some work is being done, but we need to look further at bringing that right down to the grass-roots level so that voluntary sector organisations are cognisant of that slight difference of approach to volunteering and what it means to individuals.

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need to find better ways to connect those in the world of sport who are involved with not-for-profit organisations in sports clubs up and down the country that take part in and encourage participation in sport to be seen as part of the whole community of the third sector. We must ensure that our policies and programmes reflect that. In a debate only yesterday, the point was made to Stuart Etherington, the chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, that organisations such as the NCVO could see how they could look at themselves as part of a large infrastructure body that we support and fund as a strategic partner to embrace a whole wealth of organisations in not only the world of sport but the world of art.
	The Conservative party has been talking about leadership. The right hon. Member for Horsham concluded his speech by talking about volunteering by civil servants. Indeed, I think that he briefed the  Daily Mail that
	"Tories accept that a day off a year is only a first step".
	He talked about eight hours today. However, on that first step, he has fallen over. Every civil servant in every central Government Department already has the right to paid time off for volunteering. Those in the Cabinet Office have the right to three days a year and in some Departments, such as the Home Office, the right is to five days a year.
	The right hon. Member for Horsham will have welcomed our moves to help not just central civil servants but all public sector workers, including doctors, nurses, police and teachers. Thanks to a new £13 million fund that we announced in March, they can now volunteer in some of the poorest countries in the world without losing their pension contributions. I am sure that he will welcome today's announcement by the Cabinet Secretary that we have established a cross-Government working group to promote volunteering in the central civil service. I am delighted that, rather than our adopting Conservative party policy, the Conservative party has caught up with something that has been Government policy for some time.
	We have a great track record on volunteering, and we are working with volunteers and voluntary organisations to push back the frontiers of what they can do. However, volunteering does not exist in isolation. There are two debates that affect it deeply, but they have met only silence from the Conservative party. The first is on money. When questioned, the right hon. Member for Horsham felt unable to tell the House that total public funding for the third sector has more than doubled in real terms over the past decade from less than £5 billion in 1997 to more than £10 billion according to the latest figures. That record investment is a proud achievement of a Government who are working in partnership with the third sector to ensure that it continues to thrive and succeed.
	There is more than that, however. This comes down to a philosophical divide: do volunteering and the ethic of volunteering get weaker or stronger when public services are well funded? Labour Members know the answer. Volunteers complement good funding. If one talks to them and hears what they are working to achieve, there is no doubt that they are helped, not harmed, by good public services. Indeed, the Conservative party's publication shows that countries with high public spending have lots of volunteering. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Norway. Volunteers add most to gross domestic product in the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway, and the countries with the largest number of volunteers are Norway, the UK and Sweden.
	If one listens to the Conservative party, one hears this:
	"Many things that are done by the government or the private sector could be done more effectively, or more cheaply, by the third sector."
	Those are the words of not some off-message Back Bencher but the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the Conservatives' policy chief, who is writing the party's manifesto. He let the cat out of the bag while speaking to the NCVO in February. The Conservatives do not believe in a strong society that supports services that enhance that society being paid for fairly through taxation, even though the international comparisons suggest that volunteering thrives in societies in which public services are strong and collectively paid for.

Jamie Reed: Does my hon. Friend share my concern and that of many commentators on this entire debate that we are talking about a fundamental difference of opinion on the role of the state in society? Does he believe that we are hearing from Conservative Members a proxy for compassionate conservatism, the like of which is espoused by George W. Bush? My hon. Friend does not have to take my word for it. The man who coined the phrase "compassionate conservatism", Michael Gerson, said in the  Washington Post in March that what the Conservatives were doing was the "reincarnation of compassionate conservatism".

Phil Hope: There is a philosophical divide, not least when we think about the wider role of volunteers. When volunteers see for themselves that something needs to change, do they feel able to have their voices heard and to campaign for those changes, or do they worry that if they speak up against the way in which law works or public policy affects the people whom they help, they will find themselves on the wrong side of the law or cut out from decision making regarding the public services about which they care so much? Volunteers are not motivated by plugging the gaps where public services fail. They are motivated to change those services through speaking up for the people affected, campaigning to change the law, being involved in the design of services that could make all the difference, and working towards ensuring that new services are the right ones that are properly funded by all of us through taxation.
	When we have clashed with the Conservatives here and in other places on campaigning, their discomfort has been palpable and their silence deafening. Although there is no mention of the issue in the report that they published yesterday, we remember when charities such as Oxfam were afraid to campaign because the Conservative Government were disapproving. I see volunteers acting as advocates for those whom the system has let down, and acting not only as individuals but as a group, to change the system altogether. One great example was the mass movement of volunteers who were mobilised through the Make Poverty History campaign.

Alistair Burt: The Minister talks about philosophy, but before he gets too carried away with the way in which volunteers see the Government, will he explain why there is so much criticism from the grass roots of volunteering about how the Government are handling volunteers, using them in the public services and pushing them towards targets? Will he explain why those people complain about how they are being controlled, and why volunteers feel that they are unable to contribute to their fullest because of the way in which the public sector drives them at the Government's command?
	If everything is as good as the Minister says, why is there page after page of criticism? That criticism indicates that there is a philosophical difference. We want to give charities and volunteers more freedom to do what they do best, but there is a sense among those volunteers that the Government are using them to plug the gaps. I am not sure that they would appreciate the way in which the Minister is trying to set out a difference between his party and ours, because I do not think that they would agree with him.

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman cannot deny what his party has published about the future role of volunteers and the third sector. The publication makes it clear that the approach is not about setting volunteers and the third sector free, but about abandoning them to work in some of the areas of the country with the greatest challenges. That is the wrong way to go about things. The philosophical divide between us is on whether volunteers and voluntary organisations should be left to cope on their own—isolated and without support—or whether there should be a genuine partnership among ourselves, the third sector and volunteers to create new ways of responding to needs, not least those of the most needy individuals and families in our society with the most challenges.

Iain Duncan Smith: There is a fundamental difference, and I welcome a debate on it. The Minister has just let the difference slip out. In all his extolling over the past five minutes of the virtues of the voluntary sector, he concentrated hugely on its ability to campaign for change in the public sector. At no point did he address the point of delivery and what people are doing to change radically what is happening on the ground by changing and saving lives. He did not talk about the small voluntary sector that works against the odds because local government and its officials are often inconsiderate of what it does and do not take a huge interest. Those involved fight to get funding from the sector because they cannot control it, or the organisations are subjected to tick boxes, targets and lists, and feel that they are taken over. The fundamental difference is that Conservatives say that these people need to be set free and to be given real opportunities and access to money, but not to be lectured to and directed by the Government, whereas Labour talks about direction and campaigning at the top.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies, may I say that I have noticed that interventions are getting longer? Several hon. Members hope to participate in the debate before it concludes.

Phil Hope: The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has listened to what I have said. He will know that I have just described how we have reduced bureaucracy and made volunteering easier by enabling people on benefits to volunteer, and how volunteers can claim expenses. I see volunteers every day of the week; one of the great privileges of being the Minister for the third sector is that I spend a lot of my time with volunteers, as well as users and staff of third-sector organisations, and see the remarkable work that they do on the ground, changing and transforming people's lives.
	My point was that in the Conservative party's policies, there is an absence of any mention of the other roles that volunteers play, for instance as advocates for users, and in being the voice of the voiceless. They do that both collectively and individually; people even come along to our constituency surgeries to act as advocates on behalf of individuals who are in need, and who are struggling with the local council's systems. The absence of mention of that campaigning role tells me that the Opposition see it as the third sector's part to be silent and grateful. That simply will not do. That is not the case for the third sector in the 21st century.

Greg Clark: The Minister will be aware that one of the proposals in our document is to strengthen and enforce the compact. The compact enshrines the right of charities to campaign. Will he condemn the Department for International Development, which, when it gives grants, has attempted to impose the condition that charities do not campaign?

Phil Hope: First, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Secondly, the compact was introduced in 1998 by the Labour Government—10 years ago. We have appointed a new commissioner, Sir Bert Massie, who is hugely respected in the sector. I congratulate Richard Corden, the new chief executive of the commission for the compact team, who will drive forward ways of strengthening the compact, so that it works across Government and in local government, too. A key part of the Government's contribution to strengthening the third sector's ability to deliver was the introduction and promotion of the compact. I am glad that we might have cross-party consensus on that, at least. The hon. Gentleman is just wrong.

Tom Levitt: We have heard that it is Conservative policy to free up voluntary organisations to do what they do better, but we see in the document that has been published that under a Conservative Government, cognisance would have to be taken of the reputation of the lottery when it came to giving lottery funding. Does my hon. Friend think that those two policies combined would help organisations that set out to help asylum seekers, refugees or people with HIV/AIDS? Does he think that their cause would be enhanced by those policies? I certainly do not.

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend, with his wealth of experience, again speaks knowledgeably about the possibly unintended—I suspect that they are intended—consequences of policies that the Conservative party would put in place, were it ever in a position to do so. Those policies would not be in the interests of some of the most disadvantaged, alienated, disfranchised groups in our communities.
	Mention of the Government's track record in leading the way for improvements and support for volunteering and community action has been absent from this debate, and it was also absent from the Conservatives' report. However, looking at the report, I say that perhaps that silence is better. We have waited a long time for the Conservative party's ideas. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) started promising ideas on charitable giving for the new year in 2007; we have been waiting for them. The right hon. Member for West Dorset started promising a Green Paper in February, at a conference of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, but after all that waiting, when we finally read it, we can see that it is a rush job with heavy use of cut and paste, not least from Government policy on the third sector.
	Let us take idea No. 1, which is to reduce administration on gift aid. I will send the right hon. Member for Horsham a copy of the Budget so that he can read for himself how charities can now bundle together donations under £10, so that they do not have to list all the individual donors on the claim form—a major step forward in reducing bureaucracy. Charities with small claims will no longer be penalised for errors in record keeping. Charities with a good record of bookkeeping may soon be able to self-certify. All that comes about after our discussions with charities on how to make the system work, and individuals can already give oral declarations rather than fill in a form. He and his party make warm noises about getting rid of paper trails, but they have no ideas to contribute. The truth is that we are cutting out unnecessary paperwork. I challenge him now: would he abolish the need for a record of declarations—for an audit trail for more than £800 million of public money—or does he admit that he was creating false expectations by promising action when there is nothing that he can deliver?
	Or let us take idea No. 3, which is about giving "Direct support for volunteering" through real volunteering groups, not Government-controlled bodies. Let me send the right hon. Gentleman copies of the reports by v, the independent youth-led charity that we have already mentioned, which works with hundreds of other grass-roots volunteering organisations to deliver volunteering opportunities. Those opportunities are directed not by Government, and not even by organisations, but by young people themselves. I can send him our press release of 31 January on the small grants programme, which, as I said earlier, will support voluntary organisations, not through a Government body but through local funders with grass-roots knowledge and experience of grant-making in their area.
	The Conservatives' idea No. 5 is to introduce a volunteers' hours scheme for central Government employees. As I said, we are already doing that. Every central Government Department now gives at least one day, and in many cases they give up to five days. Idea No. 6 is to improve Criminal Records Bureau checks. We have just had a debate about the fact that we have published a document on improving CRB checks.

Greg Clark: When?

Phil Hope: We announced our intention to do so months ago, and today we announced the details because it is national volunteering week. The list goes on; ideas Nos. 13 and 15 are on multi-year funding and community assets, and there are ideas about the compact. More than half the Opposition's proposals are cut and pasted from Government reports.
	In our last debate on the subject, called for by the Opposition, they seemed unbriefed about the fact that the central thing for which they were calling—a civil service Bill—was already being taken forward. They are making a habit of not knowing what Government policy is, making policy up, announcing it and pretending that it is theirs. They are in denial about the need for Government funding. They are uncomfortable with charities' disruptive, campaigning voices. They are unbriefed on the facts of Government policy. They can praise volunteers today, and we are happy to join them in doing so, but there is little doubt about which side of the House will support volunteers with action and which side is still playing catch-up.

Susan Kramer: I confess that I thought that this would be a worthy, celebratory but rather dull debate, but it is turning out to be anything but that. The Liberal Democrat party obviously supports the motion; it would be hard not to when many of the references in it are to well-known Liberals or Liberal Democrats. The motion uses a phrase from the Commission on the Future of Volunteering that we very much approve of; it calls for
	"volunteering to become part of the DNA of our society".
	It is part of the DNA of my party, both now and in the past.
	At least we have all agreed today that the health of a society is largely to be judged by the commitment of its citizens to that society. That is incredibly well expressed through volunteering. For me, this is a relatively new area to focus on from a policy perspective, so I was pleased to have the opportunity earlier this year to attend a Volunteering England event with two hon. Members who are present today on different sides of the Chamber—the Minister and the hon. Member for West Dorset.

Greg Clark: Tunbridge Wells.

Susan Kramer: I got the constituency wrong again; I meant the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). I am terrible at constituencies. I sincerely apologise. The event was in Newcastle. It was more interesting to listen to the questions from the floor than to the discussion between the participants, because the participants shared so much common ground.
	The first concern expressed from the floor was the potential for substituting volunteers and volunteer activity for public services. The feeling was that that line should not be crossed. We heard from volunteers and volunteer groups that the focus must be on additionality, not on substituting what professionals and public services should deliver. That is an important message to underscore, because it seems that there is tension in the way in which the Government relate to the public sector and public services. Voluntary sector organisations are trying to cope with that tension, and are working out what role they should play. The issue of independence has been stressed throughout the debate.
	It was reiterated that there is confusion about how volunteering expenses should be paid. On that occasion, the Minister explained that changes have been made to clarify the fact that payment of legitimate and reasonable expenses should not compromise access to benefits or put at risk the ability to enter into job-seeking activities. That had not communicated itself to people at large, so the point was made that that crucial fact should be communicated far better. Perhaps at some point the Minister will clarify the position. I am not sure that he recognises the need for expenses to be paid up front. It does not work if someone who has no resources, particularly a young person, has to pay and go through a reimbursement cycle. The problem needs to be taken on more directly.
	On Criminal Records Bureau checks, I can confirm that the Minister said on that occasion that changes in regulation were under way and would be announced shortly. We heard that repeated today. May I raise with him the issue of the Official Secrets Act? As other hon. Members will know, prison visitor volunteers struggle with requirements to sign the Official Secrets Act in the course of their activity. There are many small bureaucratic issues that interrupt the process of volunteering. CRB checks are only a small part of that.
	The topic of full cost recovery was raised from the floor at the conference. I am not sure that I fully understand where the Government stand on that issue—whether that is a policy in process or whether it is being delivered.

Phil Hope: The Treasury has issued guidance on the importance of three-year funding and full cost recovery.

Susan Kramer: I thank the Minister for that. I hope he will follow it up. The Treasury's policy on payment should be monitored and observed by other parts of Government. The subject is still an issue of contention for the major charities and has yet to be addressed.
	We have had two superb reports on volunteering—the "Manifesto for Change", chaired by Baroness Julia Neuberger, and the Morgan inquiry, published this week, which was chaired by Baroness Morgan of Huyton. The focus of both reports is on enabling people to volunteer and removing obstacles so that people can make a genuine choice whether to volunteer and how best to do so. I am glad to see from the Green Paper that they issued this week that the Tories have finally dropped the idea of compulsory volunteering, which always seemed to be a contradiction.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells says from a sedentary position that that was the Government's idea, but the national citizen service proposal always seemed to contain the notion of compulsion, and I am glad that that has been dismissed.

Greg Clark: I am delighted that the hon. Lady has raised the matter, because it has always been clear that national citizenship service is a voluntary option for young people.

Susan Kramer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. It has probably taken the Green Paper to provide clarity. When I have had discussions with the voluntary sector, I did not find that it shared that perception. They have seen national citizen service as a step towards a compulsory strategy. It is important that that does not happen. Community service of various kinds and volunteering should not be confused.
	We have heard much about the benefits that come from volunteering, the way in which volunteers can build confidence and pride in their communities, and that volunteering across communities helps bring people together. I shall focus on the need to embed the culture of youth action and youth volunteering. That should become part of our education system, but there is a tension that needs to be recognised.
	My children grew up in the United States. In order to graduate from high school, it is necessary in many schools there to perform what is called voluntary service, but it is not very voluntary. As it is regarded as part of the curriculum, most youngsters find some way to do it more in the breach than by actively engaging. When volunteering becomes embedded as a necessary part of the curriculum, there is always the risk that that will undermine the spirit of community and engagement that should be part of a healthy volunteering community. Opportunity within the education system makes an enormous amount of sense, but compulsion, whether it is back-door compulsion or front-door compulsion, is not a particularly attractive characteristic.

James Brokenshire: Does the hon. Lady agree that, as the Morgan inquiry, in which I was lucky enough to take part, recognised, getting young people to recognise the benefits of volunteering for their CVs and training and employment opportunities is an important factor? Without in any way undermining her points about the need to promote volunteering in its purest sense, those benefits could be emphasised as a further dimension of volunteering.

Susan Kramer: I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I would caution him in this respect: we have many youngsters in our community, and I can think of many in mine, who have extensive responsibilities in their own families—for example, young carers. There is no formal recognition of the contribution that they are making. I would hate to see them lose out because that cannot be captured in the same way on a CV.
	Let me give my son as an example. He chose as his route to go and play with puppies once a week—apparently socialising them. I honestly cannot say that that was of serious educational benefit or an addition to his skills, but he was able to craft it in such a way that it probably sounded quite good when the written CV was issued. I ask for an element of common sense in the way we deal with youth volunteering, although, as we know, common sense is hard to deliver.
	I would like much more opportunity for family and intergenerational volunteering in my community. That might require some different thinking by organisations. I hope that part of our discussion of volunteering is addressed to the voluntary sector, encouraging it to think of ways of structuring opportunities so that they strengthen our communities generally. Sometimes the view seems to be, "Here's the task. Now let's find the volunteers." It becomes more interesting when organisations look at the volunteers and think of ways of structuring their activities to meet broader social needs.
	In the world in which we live, with the stress arising from our work-life balance, when parents and grandparents find it difficult to spend the time that they wish with children, volunteering should be not an additional challenge but a mechanism to let people spend time together. I have been impressed with voluntary groups in my community that have seen the opportunity for young people—sometimes young people who, we sense, might be involved in antisocial behaviour—to be brought in to spend time with older people. The young people have taken the opportunity to flower, because for the first time they are met by people who have no preconceptions about them and who are delighted that they are coming in to spend time with them. Mutual respect begins to grow out of those circumstances.
	Like many people, as I reach my current age I would like to dispel the image of the volunteer as the elderly lady in the charity shop, but let us not denigrate the elderly lady in the charity shop, who does an enormous amount of work in our community.
	Many of the statistics on volunteering suggest that people often look at the different activities of ethnic groups. We need to tackle that before the perception develops that people from various ethnic groups do not participate. The statistics tend to show that people not born in the UK are less likely to volunteer. Perhaps that suggests a weakness in reaching out to those groups and giving them a sense of inclusion and welcome.
	Like many hon. Members in their constituencies, in my own community I meet a number of asylum seekers, who do volunteer, but their activities tend to be restricted to organisations structured by the local church or mosque or some faith group. There is a hesitation on the part of charities and voluntary groups more broadly to engage those individuals. I hope that we can get better guidance to make it clear that that is a resource that we can turn to, because there are often incredible skills in the asylum community. We can argue about issues of immigration and asylum, but we have not used the skills of people willing and sometimes almost desperate to become engaged in some way, because the boredom of living day to day with no activity is utterly shattering and destroying.
	I have been fascinated, too, by some of my local mental health charities and my local primary care trust, which has been working with people recovering from mental illnesses and helping them use volunteering as a way to regain their confidence and self-respect; contributing can help the individuals themselves.
	There has been discussion of employer-supported volunteering. The Government are to be congratulated on making time available for civil servants to participate in voluntary activities and it would be excellent if the initiative were strengthened. However, should we not consider not only giving time but matching time? That might be much more palatable to the private sector, part of which still resists the notion of giving time for volunteering.
	If people are willing to give a day of their own holiday, giving a matching employment day can become a much easier strategy. We have missed a trick in not looking at the potential of that. Obviously, the issue would be difficult for small businesses. Ironically, however—the statistics do not bear this out, perhaps because of a flaw in statistics—small businesses in my community value volunteering because they already see themselves closely engaged with the community. I do not find resistance from small businesses; the large business organisations, which feel that things have to be put on a more formal basis, struggle rather more.
	We fully support the idea that volunteers should get recognition for the skills that they acquire. However, as we discussed earlier with reference to job hunting and CVs, there is an element of tension in making sure that the volunteer is carrying out tasks important to the activity, rather than getting a paper national vocational qualification or whatever else.

Andy Reed: On the formalities of volunteering, we have to recognise that lots of people do not see themselves as volunteers. We had that debate during the Morgan inquiry, even though the word "volunteering" was used from the start.
	Most people help; they do not necessarily want to be dragged into a volunteering system that has recognition and all the rest of it, through to formal qualifications. Most people are seeking to help the local Scout group, church or community group, for example. Is there not a better way of doing things? Without going through formal recognition, we could allow people to help a little, rather than have them get into all the formal structures, which can be a burden. The hon. Lady is going in the right direction on that issue, but we need to look much more closely—particularly in my own area of sport—at letting people help the local sports club, for example, without having to get formal qualifications to be able to continue to do that in the long term.

Susan Kramer: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. When we see something good, the risk is that we will try to find a way to structure it, put rules around it and formalise it; it then loses its spirit and spontaneity. At the same time, it is probably legitimate to encourage people to make sure that when they write a CV they stress not only their employment activities but their helping activities. We should get that into the culture and encourage employers and recruiters to recognise the value of it. Perhaps that could be done on a more conversational basis, without our trying to crystallise everything into an actual qualification.
	A number of contentious issues have been raised. The issue of v is interesting. Unlike the official Opposition, I think that a lot of v's work has been valuable and it strikes me as a very positive organisation. However, I confess that I still struggle with its fundamental structure. It was conceived and set up by the Government and its board was put in place by the Government. Essentially, it is funded by the Government, although it can raise funds from other sources. It strikes me that v is rather a different animal from what I would consider to be a typical charitable organisation; we do not have a category for it. I recognise the good work that it has done, but we must be careful about the route that it has taken. There is always a risk of trying to co-opt, for entirely good purposes and intentions, the energies, activities and roles that we want to be carried out by an entity whose character and associations are not part of the Government. Recognising the importance of that requires an act of self-restraint by the Government.

Tom Levitt: One element of the voluntary sector that no one has raised today is its ability to innovate and experiment, and thereby knowingly to risk failure. We like our public sector organisations to innovate and experiment, but we do not expect them to risk failure; the voluntary sector, however, can do that. Perhaps v is getting a bit of that voluntary sector feeling about it, in that it can be risky, innovate and do things that would not be done by a straight and narrow traditional organisation. Perhaps it is gaining from voluntary sector values in that way. Might that be an explanation of its history to date?

Susan Kramer: I do not question the intent or the fact that it has done good work. However, I am cautious because of a much broader, more fundamental point about the health of a democratic society. We live in an environment where the tendency for many decades has been to pull power to the centre. That has always been done with good intent—"We know better"; the removal of London government might be one of the dramatic examples, but centralisation has continued under the Labour Government in a number of ways. A healthy, democratic society needs centres of power and influence that are outside the remit of central or local government.
	Yesterday, the Conservatives issued a paper in which they propose to replace the Office of the Third Sector—I agree that the name is perfectly meaningless—with an office of civil society. By definition, civil society should not be fully co-opted into Government. When we go overseas, we see civil society as key, for example, to delivering aid in a way that will not be influenced by the local Government—frequently because we think them corrupt, biased or whatever else. We see civil society as incredibly necessary as a mechanism for challenge; we want it to be an authentic voice of the people. There is real risk if we try to grasp it, draw it in and co-opt it. I am concerned about that and about the approach that says, "Let's put civil society in the Cabinet."

Francis Maude: To set the hon. Lady's mind at rest, I should say that we want the office to be for civil society, not of civil society. It is important that all the incredibly valuable activities that we all wish to flourish and prosper should get support from the Government; much of this debate has been about how that should happen. What we propose does not in any way try to co-opt civil society into the Government. In fact, the very reverse is true: we see the independence of the body as crucial to its future thriving.

Susan Kramer: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but it would be a rare body that did not find itself instinctively—tiny step by tiny step—crossing the barrier between "for" and "of". That is one of the dangers, and I raise it because we have to be conscious and aware of it.

Bob Spink: Is the hon. Lady surprised by the inconsistency of the Conservatives' position? They call for Government support for civil society, but many Conservative councils, including Castle Point borough council and Essex county council, are cutting support, grants and provisions such as free room rents for many voluntary groups. They are putting those groups at risk. I am thinking, for instance, of the Phoenix club in my constituency.

Susan Kramer: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I have little knowledge of his situation, but perhaps Conservative Front Benchers will have an opportunity to answer those questions later. Many of us, however, suck in breath as we see what our colleagues do from time to time.
	I should say that my party has pleasure in the Government's decision to create a grass-roots grant programme—particularly in the endowment element of it. In my own constituency there are groups such as—they have these terrible, old-fashioned Victorian names—the Barnes Workhouse Fund and the Hampton Fuel Allotment Charity. They have been crucial to the survival of our small charities at a time when the large charities—the premier league of 18 or so major recipients of Government funds through various contracts to deliver services—have managed to use the increased base to thrive and grow, while many of the smaller and middle-sized charities have struggled, and a few in my community have closed. From time to time, charities will close. Their purpose will disappear, or somebody else may start to deliver the service better. However, that is not the case with these groups, and I am glad that there is a nod in the direction of creating an endowment body that can continue to give life to this sector, which has been generally under-recognised.
	The Minister made a point of the importance of Government providing investment in and support for charities. However, let us all recognise that the requirements for monitoring and accountability, the application process and the ongoing reporting process are often such that they are virtually impossible to satisfy unless one has a significant staff of people merely to push the paper. I am thinking of inappropriate demands such as a charity for the homeless being required to justify its geographical reach by providing the addresses of the people who attend it—an inept monitoring mechanism if ever we were to choose one. Small charities probably use volunteers to the maximum because they use them in so many broad roles and because they are so often spontaneously driven by the concerns of local people.
	I am glad to participate in the debate on this issue, which should not be hugely contentious. I slightly regret the tone that developed at some points, because this is an area where all of us—finger-pointing or not—essentially have our hearts in the same place. I hope that we can make this debate in large part a celebration of national volunteering week and a recognition of the extraordinary work that so many people do.

Tom Levitt: This country has started a process of change—the change from analogue to digital broadcasting. Over the next couple of years, the digital switchover process will take place in every community with every television transmitter. A large number of people in our communities—elderly, alone, frail or disabled—will be particularly challenged as regards getting to grips with that, and they will need help and advice. It will not be ongoing, but they will probably need it once or twice over the next couple of years—for example, in the Borders region at the moment, in the South West region over the next few months, and in my Granada region in 2009.
	If we are to get that help to them, what is the most cost-effective way of getting people into hundreds of homes in every community, where they are most needed, to deal with and to help the most frail and vulnerable people? The answer is to work with the voluntary sector, and the Government are doing just that. They have set up an organisation called Digital Outreach, which is a consortium comprising a private sector enterprise called Collective Enterprises Ltd. and three major national voluntary organisations—Community Service Volunteers, Age Concern and Help the Aged—which have come together to provide a service that only the voluntary sector can provide.
	I am absolutely delighted that the sponsoring company and Digital Outreach are based in my constituency. I was very proud on Monday when the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport came to visit Digital Outreach and to meet representatives of the voluntary organisations on the ground, who, over the next couple of years, will work not only in my constituency but across the country with volunteers, voluntary organisations and statutory bodies. That is a unique collaboration: public sector responsibility, private sector organisation and third sector delivery coming together for a one-off cause—it will not be required again after a couple of years—to deliver something of great value to our communities. That is the epitome of partnership between the sectors these days, and it is only the latest of many examples of that to celebrate.
	I welcome the motion tabled by the Conservative party, and the fact that there is not an amendment on the Order Paper simply for the sake of having one, so that we can, in volunteering week, coalesce around some values that are very important to us all. I welcome, too, the call from both Opposition parties for less bureaucracy and for encouragement and enjoyment of volunteering for its own sake, and, modestly, along with the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), the support from across the House for the report by the Commission on the Future of Volunteering. The Minister's formal response to that report clearly shows that there is momentum for a healthy future for volunteering, if we can deliver together on our side of the bargain. We cannot guarantee outcomes for the sector, but we can make its life easier and give those in the third sector generally opportunities to succeed at what they have set out to do where they have chosen to match and to work with the statutory providers.
	In slight contrast, I found it a little disingenuous that this debate comes alongside the publication of a major policy report by the Conservative party. As that 90-page document was issued less than 24 hours before the debate, only its authors will be completely au fait with it. Even I, with my commitment to the subject, only got to read two chapters, but they were quite interesting. There is no reference to the report in the motion, and I wonder whether the Conservatives were entirely pleased with its reception in the press. I noticed yesterday's whirlwind tour to Harlow and other places picking out different bits of the report. The  Medway Messenger sums it up in one phrase with its headline, "Tory leader follows Gordon Brown to Gillingham." As they say, "You can't win 'em all." I only had a chance to look at chapter 2, on volunteering, and chapter 3, on grant funding, but I want to comment on some of the issues that I found there. On page 22, there is a dismissal of Government programmes as
	"a launch, a lunch and a logo."
	When I asked the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) whether he could provide an example of that, he came up with the one that I expected—that of the Experience Corps, as featured in the document—and I demonstrated why he was completely wrong. That was a classic example of seedcorn funding that has led to a crop that is only now being harvested. Nevertheless, we have an organisation that was funded for three years and is still going strong after eight years, encouraging older people and celebrating their contribution to society.

Alistair Burt: Let me say to the hon. Gentleman as gently as I can that perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham was taking information from those who contributed to the commission's work. I quote from page 90 of the report, where it says:
	"Many people were critical of the way in which the Experience Corps in particular had been established, referring to it as 'an expensive disaster'"—
	a quote from an employee of a national voluntary sector network organisation. I think that my right hon. Friend could be excused for saying that the inauguration of the Experience Corps did not go quite as well as the Government might have wished. He had some evidence for that, and his comments were fair.

Tom Levitt: I am aware that those comments were made in years two and three of the Experience Corps' work. I know that they were made while the Experience Corps was under the auspices of the Home Office, and people clearly have long memories. I have not heard such things said about the Experience Corps in recent years when it has been an independent organisation. It may be that someone giving evidence has recalled it as such, but in my work with the Experience Corps, I have found it to be a thriving and excellent organisation.
	When I asked the right hon. Member for Horsham about professionalisation, he said that he was not opposed to it. On page 24, however, the Conservative document is somewhat ambiguous. It points out that the Directory of Social Change says that
	"52 per cent. of voluntary sector staff in Britain believe that the drive towards professionalisation is killing the spirit of charitable activity."
	However, it also says that there is a higher level of paid people in the voluntary sectors in countries where the voluntary sector is successful. I welcomed the right hon. Gentleman coming off the fence in his response and saying that professionalisation was necessary. It is not the be all and end all—of course, it must not be that—but a professional hub for the sector is necessary.
	There are eight or 10 lines on page 30 of the document on the question of training and recognition dealing with support for sector-led investment and volunteer training and recognition. I reiterate that we must recognise that people have all sorts of different motives for volunteering. One of those motives—I suspect that this is increasingly the case—is to gain experience and qualifications that they can put on their CV and use in future work. If they are going to have that experience and gain those qualifications, it must be possible for it all to be accredited in a way that is acceptable to other sectors. I am not saying that every volunteer has to undergo training or be examined on what they have done—of course not—but if people wish to use their volunteering experience as a way of making themselves more employable, employable at a higher level, or to enable them to branch out into something new in their career, that is a perfectly valid reason for volunteering. They should be able to access accredited training, but definitely not training that is, in the words of the Conservative document,
	"fully owned and controlled by the voluntary sector".
	That would mean that they had skills that could not be transferred, leading them to a dead end.
	On page 37 of the document, reference is made to council funding. I was going to point out that the experience of Conservatives taking control of councils throughout the country during the past few years has been one of cuts to spending. Why? They always tell us that it is to reduce the council tax. What is the first bit that gets cut? It is the non-statutory funding, which means funding for the voluntary sector. I was going to go into that, but the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) put it so succinctly that I will let his comments speak for themselves. We must bear it in mind that we are told in the document that ring-fencing of council funding will take place
	"so that councils can spend their funding as they see fit".
	That will set off alarm bells among those in the voluntary sector because they know what Conservative councils do when they
	"spend their funding as they see fit".
	That will all take place against a background of the Conservatives being committed to at least £10 billion of cuts in public spending, which will mean a lack of money for partnerships and joint enterprise, and cuts to the non-statutory elements of local authority work, which is essentially the work with this sector.
	One thing I found amusing about the document, under the heading "Restoring the lottery" on page 41, was how it deals with a bête noire of the Conservative party. Ever since the Conservatives established the lottery in 1994, many of them seem to think that they have created a Frankenstein's monster that has gone out of control. They really do not like the Big Lottery Fund, do they? They are going to replace it with a voluntary action lottery fund. Their justification for that, however, does not make sense. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) has corrected me on this matter in the past, but at the last general election they were committed to 25 per cent. of lottery funding going to each of the four good causes, which would have led to a reduction in funding for voluntary sector causes. I understand that that is no longer the policy, and I accept that, but that is part of the heritage of the process.
	What the Conservatives are proposing now is to reduce funding for the voluntary action lottery fund, compared with the Big Lottery Fund, by about 16 per cent. At the moment, 84 per cent. of all Big Lottery Fund money goes to voluntary sector organisations in one way or another—67 per cent. goes in directly, and another element goes to voluntary sector organisations through the arts and sports bodies and so on. The Conservative document proposes to top-slice that 16 per cent. and says that we will only have a voluntary action lottery fund that operates according to different rules, to which I shall return in a moment. The Conservatives forget that an undertaking has been given by the Big Lottery Fund, backed by the Government and in response to the arrangements on Olympic funding, that the real level of funding to voluntary sector organisations in 2009, when they feel the temporary impact of Olympic funding on the Big Lottery Fund, will remain at least at current levels. It is not possible to do that if the size of the Big Lottery Fund is cut by 16 per cent. to get a leaner, slimmer voluntary action lottery fund.

Susan Kramer: I did not raise the Big Lottery Fund because it seemed outside the remit of volunteering, but there is one concern. If the fund only funds the charitable sector and not the statutory organisation that would normally form a partnership with the voluntary sector, it is not possible to have a coherent project. I have raised that issue with the Minister—it cuts both ways—with regard to the impact of the Olympics.

Tom Levitt: The hon. Lady is absolutely right about that, which is why we have to accept that it is valid for the Big Lottery Fund to fund partnerships as well as directly funding voluntary organisations.
	The voluntary action lottery fund would be guided by a slightly different set of principles than what has gone before. The Conservatives tell us that there will be more grants for local charities and community groups, but that everything done by that fund will have to take into account the reputation of the lottery. I do not know what that means. I suspect that it means, "Unpopular causes? Bye bye—you won't get funding from the Big Lottery Fund." In the "Breakdown Britain" document published by the Conservatives in 2006, they talked about consultation on where funding should go, and of having referendums on where it should go. If we were to do that, we would be discriminating against the less popular causes such as, as I said earlier, asylum seekers, those with HIV/AIDS, and refugees. Those groups would almost certainly miss out.
	We come to the question of additionality. The document prays in aid the former Community Fund, which the document calls the communities fund, wishing that we could go back to its halcyon days. I think that the Conservatives forget who the biggest critic of the Community Fund was—for political correctness, doing the Government's bidding or non-additionality. The biggest critic of the Community Fund was the Conservative party, but now it prays it in aid. We should welcome the return of a sinner, I suppose.
	The National Lottery Act 2006 put paid to the question of additionality and complementarity in lottery and state funding. We have always had a system of complementary funding rather than additional funding, but that distinction is now clearer. Since it was set up, the Big Lottery Fund has had much more discretion and independence and has been able to demonstrate more effectively that additionality is the order of the day, and not the subsidising state mechanisms, which was the accusation made in the past. I fear for lottery funding if the Conservative plans were to come into effect.
	When looking at the ancestry of the Conservative document, I referred back to notes that I made about "Breakdown Britain" when that was published by the Conservative party in December 2006. Its very name demeans what is good about our society, our people and the fabric of the communities that hold us together; it is a title of hopelessness and despair, when there is so much out there to celebrate.
	"Breakdown Britain" was highly critical of larger charities—the Conservative party does not like the big boys in the voluntary sector. In that document, the Conservatives hinted that assets that they calculated were worth £35 billion, which were collectively held by the major charities, should be disbursed. That does not appear in their new document as far as I can see, but I should be grateful if, when he winds up the debate, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells confirmed that that is no longer his party's intention, or at least that that recommendation in "Breakdown Britain" has not been taken up, because that would be disastrous. Let me ask the House, how could a small, local organisation do what, for example, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People did when, working as a partner with the Department of Health, it delivered a £95 million programme to provide digital hearing aids through the NHS? That could not have been done by a small, local voluntary organisation; it had to rely on a larger body.
	Across the House, we recognise that three quarters of all Britons have volunteered at least once in the past 12 months and that half of our population volunteers monthly. We cannot ignore the sector—it is huge, as is its capacity to influence the success of implementation of Government policy and even the outcome of a general election, to be frank.
	That brings me to the question of campaigning. I was on the management board of the citizens advice bureau in my constituency in the early 1990s, when the CAB was threatened with loss of Government funding—it received grants directly from the then Department of Trade and Industry—if it continued to challenge Government policy on matters such as benefits. That was wrong. It was an abuse of power by the Government of the day. I am delighted to say that legislation was not needed to correct that—all we needed was a change of Government—but when the Prime Minister tells the country that the voluntary sector is the voice for the voiceless, we must listen. I am certain that my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions listen to bodies such as the citizens advice bureaux, because their feedback on how Government policy is or is not working is essential to our understanding of the effect that the Government are having on the people whom we have the privilege to govern.
	The so-called third sector encompasses not only volunteers in the classical definition, but the increasingly important community sector. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office knows of my interest in that. I applaud what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is doing to recognise the way in which volunteers and activists within communities can and should prevent any tendency to a one-size-fits-all approach and make sure that local communities get the quality of services that they need.
	We should also celebrate the success of the not-for-profit sector in general, including social enterprises and co-operatives, and in particular community interest companies. Established by the Charities Act 2006, community interest companies are run, often by volunteers, for purposes that are wholly consistent with those of the voluntary sector and are not directed by Government at all. Their work is very welcome.
	The image of volunteering has been modernised as its depth and diversity have increased. It is much more organic than the brigade of charity shop volunteers, volunteer drivers and fete organisers who have been mentioned. It includes trade union activists, magistrates, special constables and all those people who came together to make poverty history in 2006. The sector also delivers a huge proportion of this country's residential care and funding for medical research and the lifeboat service, and it acts as a champion for children, disabled people and animals. Voluntary action can be passive—signing petitions or postcards, or sponsoring a fundraising event—or active. The services that volunteers provide can be stand-alone or complementary to services provided by the public sector; they can even be integrated within public sector provision. I challenge anyone to go for an out-patient appointment at a typical acute hospital and not encounter several volunteers providing key services as they always have done, whether by raising money for a new machine, making tea, selling flowers, or carrying X-rays from one department to another. Volunteers are everywhere, and any policy on the voluntary sector must recognise its huge diversity.
	Where I want to praise the Conservative document published yesterday is on its unequivocal statement that voluntary action must be voluntary. I have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families about that, and I believe that I have received an undertaking in response to the sector's worry that by integrating volunteering too far into the curriculum, its voluntary nature is lost, which can reduce the quality of the experience. Although it is difficult, by and large schools manage to encourage and practise active citizenship, which is not quite the same as volunteering, although it certainly includes volunteering. We must find ways to encourage, promote and give young people opportunities to experience active citizenship without treading on the sector's toes and making people volunteer.
	My conclusions on what I want to see in future come in several sections and I suspect that they will find favour on all three Front Benches. In service provision, it should be easier for the voluntary sector to compete with the private and public sectors, either through contracts or through partnership. Means should be found better to ensure that full cost recovery is built into such contracts—at the moment, that cannot be guaranteed, in part because of the skills set available in the sector. The length of contracts should be extended—that has happened and is happening, but it should continue. Now, the lottery sometimes gives five-year grants for programmes, instead of the three-year, two-year or one-year grants that used to be the norm in local government. Local government now has three-year funding, so there is no reason why it should not fund local projects on a three-year basis, rather than the traditional one-year basis.
	The next group of conclusions deals with the other funding of volunteering, outside service provision. Better communication is needed within the sector and between the sector and its partners to ensure more equitable and transparent access to grants and funding streams. It is essential that the sector has a healthy organisational core and a diverse funding base. I am excited by some of the work that has been done on endowments, and the organisation that I chair—the Community Development Foundation—is working with the Office of the Third Sector on that and other schemes. Endowment, combined with social ownership of assets within communities, is a way to ensure independence and sustainability of funding, especially for smaller organisations.
	We need to find ways to promote both giving generally and payroll giving. A minute ago, I said that we should not force people to volunteer, but let us make it a bit easier for them to be payroll givers, especially in the light of the welcome announcement in the Budget that the effect of the reduction in income tax will not be felt on gift aid for three years. Nevertheless, it will be felt in three years and we need to find ways to mitigate that. If we have changed the basis of funding by that time and, through diversity of funding, are not so reliant on gift aid, so be it. If gift aid is so big that the difference will not cause much damage, so be it.
	We must fulfil our responsibility to promote volunteering as an end in itself. It is a healthy thing for people to do. I find that the communities that do not work are those where the community and voluntary sectors do not exist. That is as true in developing countries as it is in parts of Britain. We need to do more work to encourage the voluntary sector in some of our developing country partners, where resources are often not recycled in the community in the way in which the voluntary sector can achieve.
	I applaud the moves that the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, of which I was not aware, on the five days' volunteering in some Departments. Let us keep on with that, encourage other employers to take—dare I say it?—an American approach to volunteering and make corporate commitments, which people in companies deliver in their own time.
	There must be absolute clarity at the interface between benefits and volunteering, and improved user-friendliness of the Criminal Records Bureau system. I welcome the announcements that have been made and understand that there are more to come in the summer. Formal recognition of skills acquisition must also be available.
	It is an exciting time for the sector. It is good to see the consensus that has largely been expressed today. However, I find it difficult to forget that someone, who shall remain nameless, once said that there was no such thing as society, and I do not intend the House to forget it. As Members of Parliament, we all know that we have thriving voluntary sectors in our constituencies and we ignore them at our peril. We engage with them because they are what citizenship is about and because that is what we should do.

Andrew Turner: I am concerned about the organisation that distributes half of all lottery cash—the Big Lottery Fund. It expends a huge sum each year on administration and staffing costs, yet, when questioned about it, Sir Clive Booth, the head of the fund, launched an attack on the Conservative party, saying that it was hostile to the voluntary and community sectors. Sir Clive gravely misrepresented the Conservative party, but it would be uncharitable not to accept his apology. He conceded that he had made errors, based on an
	"innocent misunderstanding of Conservative policy".
	Perhaps it is therefore our responsibility to educate him about such matters. I suggest that he read our excellent report on social justice, which was launched yesterday. Above all, the incident is a clear reminder that people in Sir Clive's position must remain impartial, despite their political leanings.
	To volunteer means to offer oneself or one's services by choice and without being forced. The Government do not force people to volunteer, but once they have volunteered they are often forced to do things that they would not choose to do. They have to tick endless boxes, for which they cannot understand the need.
	On the Isle of Wight, we are very fortunate. We have a strong community spirit and many people become involved in voluntary work. I witness at first hand the astounding work that volunteers carry out. I know that, without volunteers, many islanders would be stuck. That is why I support my right hon. and hon. Friends' attempt to strip away the endless and often mindless bureaucracy that handicaps those who are simply trying to help others.
	The Government seem to mistrust anything that they did not invent and seek to control and micro-manage it into submission. The voluntary sector has been corroded little by little, leaving well-meaning souls wondering what they have done wrong. The work that they carry out has been underrated and undermined, and their roll-up-your-sleeves-and-get-on-with-it mentality has been replaced with red-tape handcuffs.
	If we want our communities to stay strong and our society to flourish, we must allow volunteers to get back to basics and get on with what they do best—volunteering, without the interference of Whitehall. From school governors drowning in paperwork to scoutmasters jumping through hoops for the Criminal Records Bureau, we need to let people who want to help others simply get on with it.
	The YMCA on the island has just carried out research on young volunteers for the rural community council. It identified overbearing bureaucracy as one of the key factors that put young people off volunteering, as well as a lack of understanding of its value. I think that those two ideas are connected. If one gives one's time voluntarily, one wants to feel that one has made a real difference to somebody's life, not merely become involved in a paper-chasing exercise.
	The research also demonstrated that smaller organisations succeed better in utilising volunteers by keeping paperwork and bureaucracy to a minimum. We need to encourage that. After all, if we do not succeed in attracting young people into volunteering, our society will never regain the idea that volunteering is valuable and useful.
	It is right that charities and social enterprises should have the chance to receive public funds in return for helping to solve difficult social problems. However, the approach needs to be different and sensitive to their needs. They are not another branch of local government—they are different and they need to be treated differently.
	We should recognise the need for longer-term contracts so that organisations can plan for the future with certainty. Local government and national Government get to know the work of charities and voluntary bodies over time. They should be able to trust them to make good use of public funds. There should be more grants and fewer contracts. If one trusts an organisation to do a good job, one does not need to specify in minute detail how it should be done.
	When contracts are needed, they should be based on outcomes rather than processes. It should be recognised that those organisations are rather special. Model contracts should be available so that successful smaller charities can have the chance to put public money to good use. They are currently often excluded from the process because they do not have legal expertise and cannot afford to employ staff to ensure compliance.
	Volunteering can take many forms. All hon. Members have taken part in and benefited from the voluntary ethos. Where would our political parties be without those who stuff envelopes, lend their gardens for social events, such as the annual True Blue party in Seaview, and trudge the streets in winter and summer? I do not believe that there should be more public funding of political parties. It could never replace such involvement and commitment.
	I take the opportunity to thank those residents of the Isle of Wight who volunteer and support all our local political parties. Indeed, I pay tribute to all volunteers, most of whom have nothing to do with politics.
	I do not suggest that the Government are not well intentioned. We all recognise the vital part that volunteers play in our society. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations estimates that the annual benefit to the UK economy of volunteering is £27.5 billion. That is irreplaceable. Volunteering is also an enriching experience for those who take part. As well as knowing that they are helping others, volunteers often benefit from learning new skills and finding a new circle of friends.
	To be fair, the Government are facing up to some of the problems. For example, they are making moves to improve the system of Criminal Records Bureau checks. I applaud that, but they need to move faster.
	In preparation for speaking in this debate, I contacted Michael Bulpitt, the chief executive of the rural community council on the Isle of Wight. I asked him what he thought the Government should do to encourage volunteering. His answer was succinct and characteristically forthright: "Both volunteers and the voluntary sector know what they want to do—just let us get on with it." I commend his advice to the Minister.

Alistair Burt: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) and the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt). My hon. Friend spoke warmly of his constituents and his personal experience. The hon. Gentleman and I spent many hours on Baroness Neuberger's commission. I pay tribute to his extensive knowledge of the subject and his deep commitment to it.
	This has been a good debate, and we have broadly stuck to the convention of recognising that the major parties share a great deal on volunteering, rather than gleefully falling on our differences and spending a lot of time exploiting them. This debate has been given spice by the publication yesterday of the excellent paper by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) on volunteering, which threw those on the Government Benches into something of a tizz. Now that the Conservative party speaks extensively on social issues, the Government think that tanks are being parked on their lawn. They therefore respond, forgetting that it was not their lawn in the first place—it is more like a common, which we have all occupied, but on which the Labour party occasionally squats and pretends to claim exclusive rights, which it has never had.
	Consequently, a frisson of excitement is still felt among Labour Members when we take them on, drawing on the vast experience of Conservative Members and representatives, and people throughout the country who support the Conservative party who have always been involved in social issues and are pleased to see their party speaking out on them.
	I shall come to the Minister's remarks shortly, because they have required me to alter somewhat those that I was going to make. I noticed that he fizzed like a decent bottle of Spanish cava when my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight talked about the need for the Government to stand back and not get involved. That reminded me of a quotation from someone who gave evidence to the commission. We spend a lot of time saying what we think about volunteering, but the commission amassed a great deal of evidence in the past 12 to 18 months from people actively engaged in volunteering. Their comments deserve a hearing, in order that they are not missed. I have a lovely quotation here, on page 39 of the evidence, from an elected member of a public sector organisation:
	"Keep out of it—let the organisations get on with doing what they are doing. Don't put so much red tape on them and just let them do what they want to do. Any structuring and you will lose what volunteers you have. Why should I spend my free time taking a lot of stupid orders from a lot of bureaucrats, when I could be retired and sitting on a sun-drenched beach?"
	I suspect that the sentiment that my hon. Friend expressed is not held solely by him or Conservative Members, and that it was not the impression that the commission formed, either.
	I shall return to the evidence later. By taking on my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the Minister sought to project an image of the Government's relationship with the voluntary sector with which he is entirely comfortable, but which is not shared by the sector. I do not minimise things that are going well or areas where the voluntary sector is working entirely comfortably, but the sector wants to take on the Government on a number of issues. I hate the phrase "a sense of complacency", but there were elements in the Minister's response to my hon. Friend that smacked a bit of, "I think we've got it right and I'm not listening to anything else."

Andy Reed: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—I shall call him my hon. Friend, as usual, after our discussions last night. I worked with the voluntary sector before I came to this place, as a project officer for a local authority, and I was also on the Morgan inquiry. Most of the remarks in the document that he quoted are almost exactly the same as the sort of comments that I heard 20 years ago about local authorities or the Government getting off people's backs. That is the nature of the voluntary sector. However, does he accept that it is also our responsibility, as the funders, to require a certain amount of accountability for those funds? If the voluntary sector wants us off its back, so that it can go its own way, that is fine—indeed, we should leave the sector alone as far as possible. However, we all have a responsibility, as parliamentarians and in local government, to require those projects to be accountable for the public funds that they use.

Alistair Burt: As the great Tony Hancock once said in "Hancock's Half Hour", "Do you know, that could've been me talking." Of course, the hon. Gentleman gets it absolutely right. A lot of the comments made by the voluntary sector about the Government could indeed have been said about any Government, because there is a necessary tension in the relationship. I want to bring out the fact that, because the Minister sought to emphasise the difference in approach between the Government and us, he missed the fact that some of the issues being raised by the voluntary sector are partly due to the approach taken by the Government. Therefore, they have a special responsibility to deal with the situation. However, the hon. Gentleman is of course correct to say that there are always tensions and accountabilities.

Tom Levitt: I can confirm that the hon. Gentleman and I spent an enjoyable 18 months on the commission. I hope that he, like me, will welcome not only the outcome of the commission but the Government's response, which was positive and supportive. To put the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) asked slightly differently, if the Government want something done and make money available to do it, it is surely quite legitimate for a voluntary sector organisation to have to make adaptations in order to take advantage of that funding. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that mission creep should only ever come from the voluntary organisations, rather than being imposed on them.

Alistair Burt: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point, the Government's response to the commission was indeed good, but Julia spent so many hours with the Prime Minister that the dear man was probably browbeaten and could only respond generously to what she had said.
	To respond to the hon. Gentleman's second point, yes, but it is all a question of degree. If the parameters are set and the voluntary sector is given the opportunity to take on a role that has been broadly set out by the Government, that is all well and good. However, we have picked up a concern that the requirements, rules and targets set out under a Government course of action for which money is available to the voluntary sector have gone a little too far. The Government should be warned about that, and I hope that my colleagues have picked that up as something that we would not do when we get the opportunity.
	In the relatively brief time available to me—I know that both Front-Bench spokesmen will want to respond to what has been a good debate—let me say that, like most colleagues, I draw much of my experience of the voluntary sector from my constituency. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to those who work in our constituencies in a voluntary capacity.
	Among those that I know best are the Sea Cadets in Biggleswade, a uniformed organisation of which I am the president that does remarkable work in the town and represents well the uniformed organisations that do so much good work throughout the country. Carers in Bedfordshire is a service set up by Yvonne Clark, a dedicated woman, to look after those who care not only in my constituency but throughout the country, and to provide a meeting point where best practice can be spread for such work. Headway is the organisation that looks after those with head injuries. Chris Batten does remarkable work with them. I was fortunate to run this year's London marathon on behalf of St. John's hospice in Moggerhanger and Sue Ryder Care. My wife has chaired Home-Start in Bedford for many years.
	A variety of organisations are involved, and I suspect that I am not unique in my experience. Every Member of the House will know half a dozen organisations well, and even more tolerably well, because of personal connections, which we all attract. We know that they give us the sense of what voluntary organisations do in our constituencies, and how remarkably valuable they are.
	Sport is greatly important to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed). The Bedfordshire football association does good work through football and my friends Phil Dean and Martin Humberstone do a great deal through Biggleswade swimming club. Sport does so much for so many people who are looking for guidance, and I echo the comments made by a number of others about the need for more adult volunteers to coach and to get involved. What youngsters need most is for grown-ups to be involved in what they are doing; that is what they are looking for.
	I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, as we would all do, in thanking the volunteers who work for us on the street, supporting political parties. That is not the most popular form of voluntary activity. I regret the fact that MPs being the target for popular attacks reflects on those who give their time to work for political parties, making it harder to recruit them and making it difficult for them to feel valued for what they do. Those who put many pieces of paper through people's doors, as they have recently in Crewe and Nantwich and as I believe they will do shortly in other parts of the country, are to be immensely valued. We very much appreciate what they do.
	I would like to spend a few minutes discussing the commission and thanking it for the work that it did, as well as those who contributed to it. We found volunteering to be in rude health throughout the country, and we found exactly what hon. Members have spoken of—tremendous commitment from individuals to what they are doing and no need for direction from any great authority. Those people are committed to what they are doing because of their wellspring of need to respond to their neighbours and build a better society.
	People know that what they are doing is not just about them; it is about what they can give to others. In volunteering, they have found an opportunity to train, give to others and ensure that a cohesive society, which is not the same thing as the state, is working effectively. We are all delighted that we found that, and I have no wish to go over the statistics that colleagues have already referred to.
	Psychologically, volunteering is crucial for a society that is obsessed with work and the working culture, as well as the number of hours that people devote to them. It is essential that there is another outlet for our energy, and volunteering fulfils that remarkable need.
	A number of barriers were mentioned by those we spoke to, which have nothing to do with the Government and are not their responsibility. Lifestyle is one. I represent a rural area and a rural community. There are fewer jobs in rural areas than there were. Think of the change in the nature of society over the last 50 or 100 years. People commute more and spend more time travelling. No longer do they finish work locally at 5 or 6 o'clock, have their tea and get ready to go out and contribute to local activities. They get home at half-past 7 or 8 o'clock. They are tired. After they have eaten, the evening is gone. We are all suffering from the problem that that causes, in that there are not enough people who are able to commit themselves to such activities.
	The problem of sustainability was mentioned earlier. People cannot make a long-term commitment to do something day after day. I spoke to the leader of Bolton lads' club, who told me that the club, which has about 3,000 members, is successful because, "We operate whenever the schools don't. Every night of the week, every day during the holidays, we're there, because we can rely on a large number of people to give us time day after day." It is not like running a youth club once a week or once a fortnight, with attendance inevitably dropping off. There is that commitment from volunteers, which means so much.
	I shall come to rules and regulations, red tape and health and safety in a moment. The onus placed on trustees is much greater than it used to be. It is harder for some people to accept the obligations, because they suddenly realise that they might end up more committed—financially and in other ways—than would have been the case some years ago. Being a trustee of a voluntary group is no longer the job it was. That issue ought to be looked at by Members on both sides of the House to see whether we can in some way relieve people of those responsibilities. That matter was referred to more than once in the evidence given to the commission.
	May I say a word about Government responsibility? As I said, to some degree I have changed what I was going to say. I think that the Minister was too defensive, perhaps because he was stung by the document that we have produced. He deserves to listen a little to what those involved in voluntary activities think of what is happening out there. A section in the results of the public consultation is entitled "The relationship between Volunteering and Government". Some of it is positive. Page 88 deals with positive experiences. However, pages 89 to 113 set out a rather different story of problems that volunteers experience, which they put down to things that the Government might do something about. They include the planning process, continuity between initiatives, consultation and communication with volunteer-involving agencies, funding time scales, reporting and monitoring time scales, focus on targets, lack of resources to capitalise on initiatives, the nature of the volunteering placements available and the focus of some programmes.
	Let me quote, if I may, people who spent their time and gave their commitment to contributing to the consultation process. They deserve to be heard. On the planning process, an employee of a national voluntary sector organisation said that
	"my organisation has participated in a number of government programmes. As a whole they tend to be poorly conceived, aimed at grabbing attention, and misunderstand volunteering and the voluntary sector".
	A local branch of a national charity considered that there is
	"a confusion of initiatives from central government and local authorities...there is no overall plan or structure".
	We have already discussed one or two individual initiatives. I quote an employee of a national voluntary sector network organisation:
	"There has been huge investment in new volunteering initiatives over the years from the Experience Corps to v which has taken little account of existing volunteering experience or of volunteering organisations or structures".
	There is no criticism of that investment being made, but there is criticism of failure to recognise what was already there and, therefore, money committed. So often, for the Government it is all about how much money has been spent, not necessarily what has been done or achieved. The concern is that money and time are being spent that need not be.
	The document also says:
	"A further area of criticism related to funding timescales. A complaint voiced frequently was that the time allowed to apply for funding from government volunteering programmes is sometimes too short".
	It goes on to supply quotes from various people.
	On the focus on targets, Minister, the document says:
	"Government funding programmes place too much emphasis on targets, ie number of volunteers placed. Respondents considered that stress on targets can prove detrimental to the quality of the volunteering experience. This appears to be a particular criticism of Millennium Volunteers: 'target driven with emphasis on quantity not quality'."
	Another employee from a public sector organisation said:
	"As a result, 'organisations who are unlikely to provide a volunteering opportunity for the required length of time or potential volunteers that are unable to make the time commitment that would meet the terms of the definition will both miss out from the support of the Volunteer Centre...it feels as if government can move the goalposts but we can't'."
	I shall refer to a final quote on volunteering policy, which will be of interest to the Minister because it is rather wide-ranging. An employee of a national voluntary organisation for older people said:
	"I have no sense that there exists a strategic volunteering policy within government, a roadmap if you will, that sees volunteers and volunteering as an evolving, interlinked creature, that recognises the impact interventions (such as funding) have, not just on the targeted group but also the potential negative impact it may have on non-targeted groups".
	That is a selection of quotes; there are a lot. Of course, a lot has been done that is positive—we understand that—but the Minister, in his determination to have a go at a document produced by my colleagues, which he has barely had a chance to consider, was over-optimistic in his view of how the voluntary sector views the Government.
	As the hon. Member for Loughborough rightly pointed out, much of this criticism could be directed at any Government. If we were in government we would have to take full note of the views of people who spend their lives in organisations, either as volunteers or as employees. I would be disappointed if we glossed over criticisms and did not accept them as being genuine.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) observed that the philosophical difference between our parties related to the intention of volunteers. It seems to me that the Government focus on their importance in relation to the process of delivering services, while we concentrate on their importance in relation to the end product. What matters is the quality of services delivered to the people for whom we are concerned and for whom we have responsibility. Are those services effective? In broken-down families, is the necessary work being done to mend people and keep them together? Are old people helped by what we are trying to do? This is not about a process, but about outcomes. I think that too often the Government concentrate on the process—hence their self-admiration in the context of the amount of money given rather than what is actually delivered.
	My colleagues' approach to the document published yesterday indicated our interest in using the freshness of voluntary groups—large and small, but in many instances community-based—to deliver what they do best without being excessively trammelled by Government targets, regulation and direction. Yes, there must be accountability, but we must not lose that freshness of approach. According to what we hear from voluntary groups, they feel that the Government have overdone it—for all sorts of reasons, but perhaps because they cannot quite let go in this sector as in others. That is the main difference between us. My hon. Friends have responded to that desire for freshness—the desire to allow people to do what they do best; the desire for the professionals to be professional in public services, and for the volunteers to deliver what they know so much about.
	I believe that we can set those people free. If the Government do not listen to the criticisms coming from the sector, they will miss an opportunity to do something rather better in the couple of years remaining to them. We will make the very most of that opportunity on the basis of the information that the voluntary sector has already given us.

Greg Clark: It is a pleasure to be able to mark national volunteering week with a debate on the subject. It is good that the Government did not table an amendment, thus enabling us to unite on a motion that draws attention to the contribution made by voluntary organisations, and specifically by volunteers, to our national life. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) quoted the NCVO's figure of £27 billion. That is a colossal figure, but the real contribution lies in the transformation of the lives of the people whom we see in our constituencies.
	The great attraction of today's debate is that although not many Members have had a chance to make speeches or intervene, we have been given so many examples that capture in a microcosm the widespread contributions made by volunteers. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) spoke of the great work done in prisons to get people back on to the right road and to prevent recidivism. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) told us of the signal contribution that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, free of any requirement to do what it does, makes to our national life. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) talked about the Scouts.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) praised the work done by charity shops, but also referred to more quirkily named charities such as the Barnes Workhouse Fund. Its Victorian name may appear somewhat archaic, but I gather from the hon. Lady that it continues to do fantastic work. The hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) mentioned the RNID, a national charity. It was clear from what we heard that, from national level to a very small level, the sector makes a colossal difference. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) took the prize in listing the litany of organisations with which he is involved: the Sea Cadets, the Bedfordshire carers, Headway, the hospice movement, Sue Ryder Care and Home-Starts, with which his wife does such great work.
	All that demonstrated the great variety of contributions that we have the opportunity to make through volunteering. One of the unsung contributions to our national life is made by volunteers in the public services. Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, for example, has pioneered the use of volunteers in the delivery of care and making life better for patients. The Kent and Sussex hospital in my constituency has just embarked on a pilot enabling volunteers to become "supper-time companions", giving their time to be sociable with patients who may have no one to talk to during the day and ensuring that they have company, which is good for their morale.
	The debate has given us an opportunity to record our appreciation of the work of the voluntary sector, and in that context I found the tone of the Minister's opening speech slightly regrettable. We were careful to table a motion that was not partisan and reflected broad cross-party support, but he seems to have the knack of rendering divisive issues on which I think there ought to be a degree of consensus. I think he was wrong to ascribe to a Labour Government in particular the fact that the voluntary sector is flourishing; volunteers throughout the country may well resent the fact that their efforts, voluntarily given, have been described by a Minister as in some way down to the activities of the Government. Those people are there because they have the instinct to take voluntary action, and I do not think they will take kindly to having it usurped by the Minister, in words at least.
	The Minister entertained us yesterday with his response to something that he had barely read. He said on the radio that our document represented a return to the Victorian age for charities, but that half what was in it had already been proposed by the Government. That strikes me as being in the long and admirable tradition begun by the former Deputy Prime Minister, who famously said that the green belt was a Labour achievement and that we must build on it. If the current Prime Minister is seeking a replacement for that much-missed figure, he may have found one in the Minister if he continues to make statements like that.
	We have discussed the contribution that the sector currently makes, and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire spoke of the rude health that it enjoys, but there is still a shortage of volunteers. According to a survey of people who manage volunteers, 59 per cent. said that they experienced difficulty in recruiting enough of them. The Morgan report—an excellent report—said that that was particularly true of young adults, which was confirmed by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate. The Scout Association, a fantastic organisation, has a waiting list of 40,000 children and young people for the Beavers, Cubs and Scouts, because there are not enough adult volunteers.

Andy Reed: May I return the hon. Gentleman to what was said by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)? I took part in the Morgan inquiry, and have been involved with the Scouts and Beavers as a helper. I used to help to run a Friday night Beaver session. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of the constraints that he has mentioned are social constraints relating to the work-life balance? Given that 65 per cent. of people now have an atypical working week, parents tend to do volunteer work for a shorter time before moving on with their children. A generation earlier, people such as my parents would volunteer for 20 years. The problems are social problems that we must work together to eradicate, not just through the voluntary sector but in the wider context of social mobility and the social contract that we have as a country.

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. The commission has helpfully suggested, and spread the notion, that employers should play their part. If work life is impinging more on what was previously leisure time that could have been devoted to volunteering, perhaps a bit more give and take is required, and people, especially young adults, should be allowed to take time off. That is one of the more welcome contributions, which we have sought to echo.
	It is concerning that the number of young people who volunteer seems to be static. In an nfpSynergy study, between November 2006 and November 2007, the number of young people who said that they had not volunteered in the past three months had increased—it had done so only marginally, but it had not declined—from 79 per cent. to 80 per cent. It is important to get more people, especially young adults, involved in volunteering. That is particularly true in the volunteering deserts, as they have been described. The parts of the country that would benefit most from volunteering are those where the level of volunteering is half of that in less-deprived areas.
	Committed volunteering is important. It will be fantastic if people try their hand at volunteering this week, in national volunteering week, but it is crucial to the running of Scout groups, and even more so for organisations such as the Bolton lads' club, which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire mentioned, to get people to commit to volunteering regularly. I completely agree with the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) that that will require a change in the work-life balance to which people are subjected.
	Certain issues hold back further possibilities in the sector. For example, we have heard a lot about over-regulation. I assume that the Government agree on that point, put in a reasonable way, as it is in the motion, which mentions the
	"bureaucratic barriers that lie between volunteers and volunteering."
	I hope that that issue is not in contention across the House.
	The Commission on the Future of Volunteering, on which the hon. Member for High Peak and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire served with distinction, said time and again that it had heard stories of bureaucratic hurdles. The motivation for having those hurdles might have been good, but they have degenerated into caricatures of risk-aversion. We must act on that issue. CRB checks are a particular bugbear, so I am delighted to hear that the long-awaited reforms were published today, and I look forward to reading them.
	The benefit system has been mentioned once or twice, but not too much. However, the Morgan inquiry, on which the hon. Member for Loughborough served, talked about the rigid package of bureaucracy that surrounds the unemployment benefit system and dissuades young adults from volunteering. It is important that we address that problem. The rules might have changed but the orders have not got out there. In a letter to the Prime Minister, the volunteer centre in Nuneaton said:
	"In the last 6 weeks, 3 of our volunteers have had their benefits stopped"
	despite completing the necessary forms. The letter went on to say:
	"Recruiting volunteers has never been an easy task, however with more and more volunteers experiencing difficulties with their benefits and the DW&P, that task is much harder."
	We need to change the way in which we communicate people's entitlements.
	On Government initiatives, the commission highlighted the views of many in the sector. For example, it picked up a lot of criticism about several aspects of the Government's initiatives to promote volunteering. I do not doubt that those initiatives had the best of purposes, and I shall not repeat the quotes that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire gave from the groups that took the trouble to give evidence to the committee, but it is wrong for the Minister to dismiss that point so readily as having being dreamt up or motivated in a partisan way.
	When it comes to solutions, we need to do exactly what the Neuberger commission recommended, which is ensure that volunteering
	"becomes part of the DNA of our society".
	A culture change is needed, but it must be voluntary. We cannot compel people to volunteer. Members on both sides of the House made the point that it is important that the party in government should draw back from seeming to suggest that volunteering might be compulsory. We want to spread a social norm of volunteering, so that it happens in all sectors. There are some fantastic examples of companies that give time to their employees to volunteer, and they benefit substantially from that. We have heard that KPMG gives three and a half hours a month, and we have suggested that there should be a minimum commitment across government for eight hours a year. The Cabinet Office rightly makes a commitment to do that, but we need to make sure that, at the very least, everyone knows, across government, that they have the right to take eight hours a year to make a difference to their communities. It is empowering that they should know that.
	We need to get rid of bureaucratic checks. CRB checks have been mentioned, and we will look at the matter with great interest. Benefit complexity has also been mentioned in that regard. It is also important to recognise training. The Morgan inquiry recommended that the skills that young adults can gain from volunteering should be recognised. In response to the comments of the hon. Member for High Peak, I point out that when we say that that should be owned by the sector, we do not mean to say that it should not relate to the world of employment—far from it. However, we do not think that it should be imposed on the sector by the Government. It should be driven by the sector and by the enthusiasm of those in it.

Tom Levitt: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree with the recommendation of the Commission on the Future of Volunteering regarding the importance of training?

Greg Clark: I do agree with that recommendation. We have made a suggestion in our report that we should work with the sector to see whether we can develop a system for recognising that training. Training is absolutely key.
	The question of investing directly in the grass roots has come up, and v has also been mentioned. That organisation has a particular responsibility, because the £117 million of public funds that is going into it over three years is a lot of money. It needs to demonstrate that the value that it offers is proportionate to the amount of public support that it is receiving. The alternative would have been to put that money into existing organisations, such as the Scouts. The Scouts would benefit from having access to even a fraction of that amount, to enable them to employ more development officers in areas where there are not enough volunteers to lead Scout groups, and we need to be convinced that that would not be a more effective use of the money. We wish v well, but the evidence to date is far from conclusive. A lot of the evidence given to us and to the various commissions suggests at least that the jury is still out in regard to v. In particular, over the past year, the fact that there has been no material increase in youth volunteering, despite the considerable funding that has gone into the organisation in its first year, gives cause for concern.
	Volunteers deserve the recognition that they are getting this week, and I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to express that recognition in Parliament. I believe that volunteers are both the beginning and the end for us in civil society. Volunteers were always the first to open schools and hospitals, and the first providers of relief to the poor. Today, they are still the first to spot patterns of deprivation developing, and problems that need to be resolved. They are still the first to take action on some of the sources of social breakdown. They have always been there first.
	It is also important to reflect that volunteers are always there at the end. Often, it is volunteers who are there as a last resort when all else fails. They are the last resort for the vulnerable and marginalised people who slip through the net that the state erects to catch them. Outside this country, volunteers are the last gasp of civilisation when Governments have ignored and turned their back on their own people. No sector is more central to our national life, and it is important that we have recognised it today. We have made some suggestions in our Green Paper on how we can strengthen the support and help that the Government can give to the sector. I look forward to the Minister's response to the debate and thank him for his agreement to make this a cross-party motion today.

Phil Hope: With the leave of the House, I would like to respond to the debate. We have had a good, robust discussion today about volunteering. Last week, I had the privilege of joining users, volunteers and staff at Newark Mind, and of preparing, cooking and eating lunch with them. I experienced at first hand the difference that such an organisation can make to people with mental health problems—the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) mentioned such people in her speech—who are endeavouring to get back into society and to develop their self-esteem and self-confidence. Organisations such as Mind are doing terrific work to bring about a transformation in people's lives.
	This afternoon, Members on both sides of the House have recognised the value of the contribution that volunteers, charities and third sector organisations are making to communities in their constituencies. I am worried, however, that we are seeing a new tactic being used in the House. The Conservatives published a controversial policy document on the third sector. They then tabled a motion on volunteering, about which there is genuine consensus. But they are expecting to use this consensual debate as a cover for a debate on their policy, because they know that we do not want to break the consensus on volunteering that clearly exists. Well, they are not going to get away with that. If they publish a policy document, their proposals are going to get robust scrutiny, not least from Labour Members and from me, as Minister for the third sector. I believe that their policy is, at worst, flawed and damaging to a thriving third sector, and that it would take us back to a Victorian era of silent and grateful charities.

Greg Clark: The Minister has said that he wants a robust debate. He has also said that our policy would take us back to Victorian times. Can he tell me which of the 20 main policies that we have put forward would result in a return to Victorian times?

Phil Hope: The complete absence of any acknowledgement of the campaigning role that volunteers individually and collectively play in changing society is exactly where the Opposition's policy is fundamentally flawed, because it does not embrace the full range of volunteering opportunities and the role that the third sector has played in bringing about massive changes over the last century and a half.
	The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) criticises me, as did the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), for putting on record the success of the Labour Government, under whom volunteering and third sector organisations have genuinely flourished over the decade. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells even suggested that I should be appointed Deputy Prime Minister. That particular suggestion may have some merit.
	Without wishing to be too tendentious, let me say that the number of registered charities has risen over the last decade from 120,000 to 160,000. The number of people volunteering formally or informally at least once a month has risen from 18.4 million in 2001 to 20.4 million in 2005. Research into charities estimates that turnover has increased from around £16 billion to more than £27 billion over the last decade. The work force has increased by around a fifth. I cannot agree with the hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), for Tunbridge Wells or for North-East Bedfordshire that we do not have a strong and flourishing third sector, brought about by the policies to create the environment in which it can flourish.

Alistair Burt: Will the Minister give way?

Phil Hope: I shall address some of the hon. Gentleman's points in a second.
	The hon. Member for Isle of Wight confused grants and contracts. The point about contracts is that they specify outcomes and services because they are part of a wider commissioning strategy in which third sector organisations are involved at every stage, identifying user needs, talking about user outcomes and designing services. Where the third sector wants to engage in bidding for contracts, it can deliver those services while holding all providers—third sector, public sector and private sector—to account for their performance. That is why those systems exist.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park asked about expenses. Volunteers can get expenses up front, and DWP guidance has stated that. I very much agree that young people in particular need their expenses up front, which is why v has an allowance scheme that has enabled expenses to be paid up front to young people on their full-time volunteering programmes.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) intervened to ask whether local Conservative-controlled councils have read the Conservatives' policy, and if so whether they would stop cutting their grants to local voluntary organisations. That gives me the opportunity to remind the House about the new local government performance framework, which includes two indicators in a national set, one on volunteering and one on a thriving third sector. Two thirds of the 35 local area agreements will have at least one of those indicators as priority indicators to pursue. We wish to see voluntary organisations locally playing a strong and equal part in local city partnerships, deciding local priorities, delivering local services and holding local government to account.
	The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire complained that we were not listening. In 2006, the Government undertook the largest ever single consultation, involving more organisations, voluntary groups, social enterprises, community groups and charities than on any other occasion in drawing up the third sector review, which spells out a 10-year strategy to ensure that we have stronger communities, better public services, flourishing social enterprises and a flourishing third sector.
	On the hon. Gentleman's point about the commission, we have not only listened to it, but have responded directly. I have announced the CRB guidance today, and there is more money for training and more help for disabled volunteers. New benefits guidance is to be published as well. He is right to say that the Prime Minister spent a great deal of time with Baroness Julia Neuberger. One of the Prime Minister's first acts on being appointed was to appoint Baroness Neuberger as the Government's champion for volunteering. To say that we have not listened, do not know the issues or have not responded is so far from the truth as to be laughable. Baroness Neuberger has recently produced a groundbreaking report on the development of volunteering in health and social care services and is now working on the role that volunteers can play in criminal justice.
	We have demonstrated not only that we are celebrating success, but that we continue to listen to representations from voluntary organisations, third sector organisations and even Opposition MPs who make some clear—

Alistair Burt: rose—

Phil Hope: I have not got time to give way now, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to write to me afterwards.
	My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) is one of the most knowledgeable, experienced and committed Members of the House in his support for the voluntary sector. We hugely welcome not only his contribution this afternoon, but the work he does tirelessly behind the scenes, in all-party groups and across the board, for which I sincerely thank him. He gave a forensic analysis of the Opposition's proposals, particularly in respect of how the Big Lottery Fund might be disadvantaging organisations that are doing a good job. He talked a lot about the role of organisations becoming the voice of the voiceless, but he rightly said that we have more to do on ensuring that contracts really do take into account the needs of third sector organisations and that we can do a lot better on employee volunteering.
	Whenever I visit voluntary organisations and volunteers, it is a privilege to meet those often unsung heroes, who, day in, day out, provide vital services to the community, not least to those who experience most disadvantage. I agree with the Opposition Members who say that volunteers are at the heart of our communities, because, as they rightly say, volunteers are the glue that binds us together and they have a huge impact on people's lives. I am delighted that Justin Davis Smith, the chief executive of Volunteering England, who continues to press us to do more, has said that volunteering has never had it so good. I think that he is right.
	The report that the Conservatives published yesterday is a missed opportunity. It looks good, but frankly it has little substance. It is slick salesmanship and a good performance, but it is little more than a literature review that plagiarises a great deal of Government policy that has put us on track. A point was made about the report's recommendations with which I disagree, so I should say that the absence of any remarks about campaigning would take us back to an era of silent and grateful charities, and that is not the way in which we should progress in the future.
	I ask the Opposition to listen to organisations such as the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which has already registered its concern that
	"the Green Paper makes no reference to the important role that voluntary and community organisations play in campaigning and advocacy."
	We have a strong, forward-looking agenda for change, which was drawn up in partnership with the sector. I think that the Conservatives would like us to have that relationship break down, and that is what would happen were they ever to get into power.
	Our relationship with the sector should be deepened and strengthened. Our vision for the next 10 years is one of building stronger communities where people can and do make a difference; building a stronger third sector; investing in capacity to provide services; and creating new mechanisms for inward investment and transforming public services. This is a Government who have ensured, and will continue to ensure, that we have a thriving third sector and that volunteering is at the heart of stronger communities.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House welcomes National Volunteering Week and the publication of the report of the Morgan Inquiry; recognises the outstanding contribution made by volunteers to what, sixty years ago, William Beveridge called 'the vigour and abundance of voluntary action...which are the distinguishing marks of a free society'; notes that every week millions of people volunteer their time for others, providing indispensable personal care and attention in all of Britain's communities; emphasises the continuing importance of volunteering even as the voluntary sector expands its paid workforce and takes on the delivery of public services; further notes that some voluntary organisations experience shortages of volunteers in key positions; supports the call of the Commission for the Future of Volunteering for 'volunteering to become part of the DNA of our society'; congratulates employers who encourage and make time available for their employees to volunteer; and urges the Government to address the bureaucratic barriers that lie between volunteers and volunteering.

Pensioner Poverty

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should report to the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Nigel Waterson: I beg to move,
	That this House deplores the fact that, even on the Government's own figures, there are nearly two million pensioners living in poverty in the UK, that the poorest pensioners are seeing their incomes decline in real terms and that according to EU figures only pensioners in Latvia, Cyprus and Spain are more likely to fall into poverty; is concerned at the damage caused to many pensioners' finances by the alarming rise in food, energy and fuel prices and in council tax; regrets the fact that some 2.25 million older households are suffering from fuel poverty; disagrees with the Government's refusal to state when it intends to restore the link between average earnings and the basic state pension; notes with regret the Government's decision to abandon its target for maximising the take-up of pension credit when some 1.7 million pensioners eligible are not claiming it; further deplores the sharp decline in private pensions savings since 1997; and calls on the Government to finally redeem its pledge, made in 1997, to ensure that 'all pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation'.
	This is a timely debate, not least because the pensioners' parliament is currently meeting in Blackpool. Perhaps the best starting point for this debate is the amendment tabled by the Government, which reeks of self-satisfaction, self-delusion and a dismal level of complacency. Indeed, why should any of us support the amendment when the Secretary of State could not even bring himself to add his name to it?
	The perfect illustration of how out of touch with pensioners this Government have become was the 10p tax rate fiasco. Even their belated efforts to right that wrong will not help all the pensioners affected, will not take effect straight away and will be for one year only. This debate is, to a large extent, Hamlet without the prince. The publication of the crucial statistics on both pensioner and child poverty has been held up. They were originally due out in March, and now we are promised them next week. Only this Monday, the Secretary of State was clearly rattled by the suggestion that they might have been suppressed for political reasons. We will have to wait and see. If the figures show that the Government are still failing to hit their poverty targets, any suspicions about the timing of the release could be strengthened. Presumably, they might have been suppressed to help Labour in the local and London mayoral elections and in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election—I am pleased to see in his place my hon. Friend the new Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr. Timpson).

Mike O'Brien: Before the hon. Gentleman makes any more points about things being suppressed, he should know that the statistics were the subject of a review by the DWP statistics head of profession, which decided to delay publication because of an inaccuracy. That was independently verified by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and by Karen Dunnell, the national statistician. Unless the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that they are all engaged in a political conspiracy, he needs to apologise and withdraw the remarks he has just made.

Nigel Waterson: As I have said, let us wait and see what the figures tell us. If there was any political reason to hold them up—I accept, for the moment, the Minister's personal assurance—it has not done the Government much good in any event.
	The bad news is that as Labour sinks to new historic lows in the polls, the likely date of a general election moves further into the distance. That is really bad news for the country as a whole, but it is especially bad news for pensioners. Ministers like to boast—the amendment is a good example—about their alleged successes in this field. All too often, however, they quote figures based on redefining a problem rather than solving it. For example, they boast about lower youth unemployment, while recycling many young people through the new deal. They boast about child poverty while moving the goalposts. As Disraeli said, there are
	"lies, damned lies and statistics"—

Gerald Kaufman: It was Churchill.

Nigel Waterson: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that it was Disraeli: I looked it up this morning.

Gerald Kaufman: Well, it takes someone from Leeds grammar school to teach me something.

Nigel Waterson: As a fellow alumnus, I always bow to the right hon. Gentleman. He might well have been there when Disraeli said it.
	Ministers boast of removing 2 million pensioners from poverty. But if the same criteria are applied to pensioner poverty as to child poverty, it is a very different story. If pensioner poverty is measured as 60 per cent. of contemporary median income before housing costs—the measure that Ministers use to test the success of their child poverty targets—just 200,000 pensioners have been lifted out of poverty since 1997, a tenth of the figure claimed in the amendment.

David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned—perhaps he will do so—the winter fuel payment. In 1996, the last Christmas before Labour came to power—it was a bitterly cold winter—some of my hon. Friends and I went to No. 10 Downing street to plead for help for pensioners in the winter months, as there was no such allowance. The then Prime Minister, John Major, was not there, but I noticed that No.10 was very warm.

Nigel Waterson: I will come on to the issue of fuel poverty and I will be happy to take another intervention, but in 1996 gas prices were not rising at the rate they are at the moment.

Peter Tapsell: Perhaps I may go back a little further and remind my hon. Friend that it was a Conservative Government who first introduced special heating grants, and a Labour Government, under Denis Healey, who abolished them.

Nigel Waterson: I am delighted that we have colleagues on both sides of the House who can give us a long-term view on such matters and put them firmly into perspective—

Bob Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nigel Waterson: I am going to make some progress.
	Let us look at the figures that we do have. Even according to the Government's statistics, some 2 million pensioners are living in poverty—in the fifth richest economy on the planet during the 21st century and on the 100th anniversary of the first state pension. About two thirds of those pensioners living in poverty are women. Between 1997 and 2006, the number of people living in severe poverty—defined as living on less than 40 per cent. of median income—increased by 600,000. The poorest quarter of pensioner households saw their incomes rise by less than 1 per cent. last year, which is well below inflation. That means that their incomes are dropping in real terms. The worst off single pensioners saw their real incomes drop by about 4 per cent.

Bob Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nigel Waterson: According to recent EU statistics, only pensioners—

Angela Browning: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Nigel Waterson: Yes, of course.

Angela Browning: Only a week ago, I was canvassing with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr. Timpson) in Crewe, and we met two pensioner ladies. I was struck by the fact that they had worked hard all their lives and worked in the armaments factory in Crewe during the war, but one told us how, at 74, she had to go out and do a cleaning job just to keep her head above water for the basic requirements. When we talk about poverty, it is about money, but it is also about quality of life, which is quite intolerable for people of that age who have to work.

Nigel Waterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We can all tell similar stories of canvassing in Crewe and Nantwich where such issues were raised on the doorstep. Ordinary working people, and retired people even more so, felt that Labour had lost touch with them and their priorities.
	I was going to say that according to recent EU statistics only pensioners in Latvia, Spain and Cyprus are more likely to fall into poverty than those in the UK. The surge in food, energy and fuel prices and council tax bills, which have on average doubled under this Government, has hit pensioners hard. Some experts reckon that the true rate of inflation for pensioners is more like 9 per cent.

John Redwood: Has my hon. Friend noticed how the Government are very much at fault? They impose taxes, especially on motor fuels that are needed to deliver products and services to the elderly, and they increase the tax at the very time when the market price is going up, too. They are pocketing more money than they were budgeting for, and they are too mean to give it back.

Nigel Waterson: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Treasury is quietly doing rather well out of the rises in fuel prices.
	For many pensioners, the true rate of inflation is way above the official rate of inflation, because such a disproportionate amount of their income is spent on utility bills, council tax, food and fuel.

Albert Owen: The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) was talking about quality of life issues. The Welsh Assembly Government, which has been Labour-led for many years, introduced the free bus transport concession for pensioners, which has now been implemented across the UK. Does the Conservative party support that, and, if so, why did the Conservative group in the Assembly not support it early on?

Nigel Waterson: I do not want to get too diverted, but in Eastbourne the Chancellor's largesse has landed council tax payers with an extra burden because the policy of free bus travel that was announced by the Government did not include the full price of the ticket.

John Gummer: Is it not also true that in rural areas the Government have taken away the money that used to come to local authorities in order to give it to Labour authorities elsewhere, which means that the poor in rural areas now have to pay council taxes way beyond those paid by the poor in other areas and that the services that they get as a result are far worse?

Nigel Waterson: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is growing evidence of a huge transfer of resources from Conservative areas, and rural areas in particular, to Labour-controlled areas. That situation needs to be addressed rapidly by the next Conservative Government.
	It is no wonder that there has been a dramatic rise in the number of pensioners going bankrupt—from only 900 in 2002 to nearly 8,000 in 2007. That shows how, at a time of their lives when they are entitled to some peace of mind, money worries are preying on our elderly citizens. Even the new figures—when they emerge—will not take any account of the surge in energy and fuel prices that has occurred since the Prime Minister took over.
	What of the longer term? A recent report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies does not make comfortable reading. It concludes that the proportion of pensioners below the poverty threshold will remain at its current level, despite the Government's reforms, for at least the next decade. Are Ministers embarrassed or ashamed? Not a bit of it. They persist in making extravagant claims about their alleged successes while many pensioners sink deeper into poverty, debt and despair.
	The Government's main response to pensioner poverty has been to increase means-testing massively. Nearly half of all pensioners now retire subject to means-tested benefits. Surely even Ministers realise by now that they have tested to destruction the ability of means-testing to deliver help reliably to those who need it most.

Brooks Newmark: Is my hon. Friend aware that many elderly people find the problem with means-testing is that the forms that they must fill in are incredibly complicated and even frightening? That has the result that many pensioners do not claim what they are perfectly entitled to.

Nigel Waterson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Despite the sterling efforts of the Pension Service—I have visited my local branch in Eastbourne—which goes to extraordinary lengths to be helpful, many older people are put off by the complexity of the process, the form-filling and the long telephone call that is usually involved. There are other reasons, such as pride and not wanting to go cap in hand to the state. Many people assume that they are not entitled, and it is clear from the statistics that that is especially true for council tax benefit, because some elderly people who own their homes cannot believe for a moment that they would be qualified to claim.

Geraldine Smith: The pension credit has helped pensioners in my constituency, and the targeting of resources has meant that the poorest pensioners can be £30 or £40 a week better off. Would the hon. Gentleman scrap that?

Nigel Waterson: I am not saying that at all— [ Interruption. ] If the hon. Lady will allow me, I am saying that that is fine for those who make a claim. It is the duty of every Member to encourage people to claim—and, in some cases, to help them to claim, as we have probably all done—when they are entitled to do so. However, some 1.7 million people who are entitled to claim pension credit do not do so. There will always be some means-testing in the system—that is unavoidable—but we have mass means-testing for half of pensioners.

Bob Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on means-testing?

Nigel Waterson: The prediction is that unless something is done—something is happening, so hopefully this will not occur—about 70 per cent. of pensioners will be subject to means-tested benefits by the middle of the century.

Bob Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nigel Waterson: The current Prime Minister—

Bob Spink: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has taken interventions from every single Member in the Chamber, but he has refused to give way to me on five different occasions. Is it right that he discriminates against—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is entirely for the Member who has the floor to decide whether to give way and take an intervention. That is certainly not a matter of order for the Chair.

Nigel Waterson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	When the Prime Minister was in opposition, he said:
	"I want the next Labour Government to achieve what in 50 years of the welfare state has never been achieved—the end of the means test for our elderly people"—
	another broken promise.
	As I have said, up to 1.7 million people who are entitled to pension credit do not claim it, despite any number of advertising campaigns and other attempts to boost take-up. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions confirmed on Monday that the Government have dropped their original target for maximising take-up of pension credit.

Angela Watkinson: The complexity of the forms often leads elderly people to seek the help of family or friends in completing them. If it is not done absolutely accurately—if an error on the form leads to the claim being refused—it is extremely difficult to put things right after they have gone wrong, so there is a serious case for making the process of claiming much simpler and easier to understand.

Nigel Waterson: I am grateful for that. In fairness, Ministers have attempted to make the process easier, and to bring in other benefits if people are claiming pension credit. We may hear a bit about that in the speech of the Minister for Pensions Reform. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) says, there is still some way to go in that regard.
	The result of all the problems that I outlined is that nearly £5 billion a year in benefits goes unclaimed by older people and remains in the Treasury. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that if all those benefits were claimed, it would lift 500,000 pensioners out of poverty at a stroke. The report's authors pointed out the effect that higher pension income among new retirees has had on relative poverty levels—that is, if it was not for the massive success, under previous Conservative Governments, of encouraging private and occupational pension saving, the poverty figures would be even worse.  [Interruption.] The IFS concluded:
	"If the government wishes to see pensioner poverty continue to fall, it will have to find more money for pensioners in what will already be a tight spending review".
	Did the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) wish to intervene?

Gerald Kaufman: No, I was just interested. [Hon. Members: "Go on!"] The hon. Gentleman's speech is extremely interesting, as I would expect a speech of his to be. On the other hand, it is perforated, as I shall show in my speech, if I catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye.

Nigel Waterson: I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman means by "perforated". No doubt we will find out. As he and I were taught by the same English teacher, albeit many years apart, I have no doubt that he will expand on that point with some eloquence later.

John Gummer: I would not like my hon. Friend's speech to be perforated as a result of his failing to say that poor pensioners are paying council tax to put back the money that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Prime Minister, stole from everybody's pensions. Public servants, particularly local authority servants, are being paid for by my poor pensioners.

Nigel Waterson: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are other examples of massive unfairness, too. Approximately a third of state pension increases made since the Government came to power have been taken up by council tax bill increases, which is incredibly unfair.

Pete Wishart: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that council tax is one of the biggest contributory factors to pensioner poverty? In Scotland, 110,000 pensioners spend more than 10 per cent. of their disposable income on council tax. The Conservatives introduced the council tax, following the even more disastrous poll tax. Even after that experience, surely we should address the issue in order to tackle pensioner poverty, and base the tax on ability to pay, for goodness' sake.

Nigel Waterson: That is another debate, and one that I would find fascinating. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is not advocating a return to the poll tax. I do not know whether he has the same experience in his constituency, but I have come across constituents who use their winter fuel allowance to pay their council tax. That is completely bonkers. When Ministers go on about the winter fuel allowance, they have to realise that, for some pensioners, it is a way of paying their council tax bill.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman says that he wants a fair share for pensioners, and he rightly decries pensioner poverty. He also decries means-testing. Will he tell the House by how much his party would raise non-means-tested benefits, and what percentage of gross domestic product he thinks a Government ought to spend on pensioners? He ought to tell the House how much more his party would offer pensioners; otherwise, it is a rather empty debate.

Nigel Waterson: Yes, I will tell the hon. Gentleman, but not today. There are about two years for the Government to limp on, and I think they will do so. We need to see just how bad things have got and how dreadful the public finances are. I am always grateful for the hon. Gentleman's interventions. I do not know whether he is still a member of the Government. I shall set out the principles that we will use to approach the matters of policy in due course.

Albert Owen: One of the serious issues is that the poorest pensioners are not claiming council tax benefit, and one of the reasons is that local authorities do not encourage it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that local authorities should send out, with council tax bills, a form so that the poorest pensioners and others entitled to it can claim council tax benefit?

Nigel Waterson: That is a fair point. My understanding is that there are moves afoot to tackle the issue. I think I am right in saying that council tax benefit has the worst take-up rate of any means-tested benefit, and I have tried to explain why. Anything that we can do to improve that, especially as council tax levels rise so much, would be welcomed in all parts of the House. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
	In opposition, the present Prime Minister spent much of his time telling the Labour party that it could not promise to restore the link between the basic state pension and average earnings. The Government are the Johnny-come-latelys to the issue. We were the ones who promised to restore the link in our last manifesto. There is a great deal of mythology about the link and the scrapping of it, which we have gone into before and no doubt can again.
	As I understand it, the Government's current position is that they intend to restore the link in 2012 or 2015, or possibly not even then if it is unaffordable. We have already legislated in the Pensions Act 2007 to do that. What we need is the trigger to be pulled by the Government. [Hon. Members: "You abolished it."] I personally did not, but I know what hon. Members mean.
	A couple of weeks ago, the Government had the opportunity to tell the House and the wider public precisely when they intend to redeem that promise. They ducked that opportunity and whipped their Members to vote the amendment down—another example of dithering by the Government. No wonder Age Concern concluded that
	"no joined up, targeted initiative exists to reach pensioners who live in poverty."
	What an indictment.
	There is another problem, linked directly to means-testing. It is the corrosive effect that that has on saving for retirement. Why should people put money aside now when they cannot be sure that they will be better off in retirement? No wonder the savings ratio has dropped to an historic low. The Government are storing up more potential poverty for the future because of the decline in pension saving. The current poverty statistics, as I explained, are significantly flattered by the success of previous Conservative Governments in encouraging private and occupational pensions.
	As part of their attempt to repair the ravages of private pension saving since they came to power, the Government are setting up personal accounts. As the official Opposition, we have broadly supported the Turner package of reforms, but we want to ensure that personal accounts are indeed targeted on low and middle earners who have no pension savings. We have argued long and hard that personal accounts could well fail if the level of means-testing is not much reduced from present levels. The Pensions Policy Institute in particular has done a great deal of work to identify the at-risk groups who may be no better off or even worse off by being auto-enrolled into personal accounts. I am delighted that Ministers are now taking the matter seriously and have embarked on a programme of work with us, among others, to tackle the issue.
	When it comes to pensions, confidence is a vital ingredient in getting people into the pension saving habit. Nothing has done more to undermine confidence than the Government's shameful dithering for more than four years about giving proper compensation to the 160,000 pension victims who lost their pensions through no fault of their own. The Government got there in the end, and should be commended for that, but they should not have taken so long or fought so hard against the move.
	The issue of fuel poverty was raised earlier, and it is at the top of everyone's list of concerns at the moment. On the most recent figures, some 2.25 million older households are in the fuel poverty trap, and no doubt that figure is spiralling upwards almost daily. Indeed, the Government's own energy White Paper makes it clear that there is no prospect of their hitting their target of removing all vulnerable households from fuel poverty by 2010. The issue matters a lot, not just because it causes anxiety and stress for older people, but because last year there were 22,300 unnecessary winter deaths among older people in this country.
	In the face of those unprecedented challenges, what do the Government do? They have cut spending on the Warm Front scheme over the next three years by 25 per cent. in real terms, and have done so in the teeth of advice from the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group that the bare minimum required was to maintain spending at current levels. It is no wonder the Government are now being taken to court over their fuel poverty strategy by Help the Aged and Friends of the Earth. What do we hear from Ministers? We hear a lot of rhetoric, empty gestures and announcements, designed to get them out of a problem today rather than to afford a long-term solution.

Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about fuel poverty. The Government strategy relied so much on cheap energy coming from competition, but that energy was not going to stay cheap for ever. The permanent solution relies on producing proper housing stock with proper efficient heating systems so that people can afford to heat their homes again.

Nigel Waterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right. This is not a debate on energy policy, so I shall limit myself to saying that the primary duty of Government is to ensure energy supply at a reasonable price. As they have taken so long trying to develop any kind of rational energy policy, there is now a big gap—and a rising bill to go with it.

David Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nigel Waterson: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall make a little more progress; I have given way quite a lot.
	Ministers' desperate pleas to energy companies have largely fallen on deaf ears. Their idea of monitoring fuel bills smacks more of Big Brother than of a serious attempt to tackle the problem. The so-called "extra" £225 million is not new money at all—it was first announced in April. Age Concern has described it as
	"just a drop in the ocean."
	It goes on:
	"The government is quite simply failing the most vulnerable by not taking more action on this issue."
	When we look at the figures, we see that the extra money will help only 100,000—just 2 per cent.—of the 4.5 million people in fuel poverty. Just the other day, there was another panic announcement from the Minister, on the issue of emergency vouchers to benefit claimants older than 70, to help with energy bills. We of course welcome any help for hard-pressed pensioners, but what was announced looks like another one-year-only, short-term fix. It is difficult not to agree with Help the Aged, which said:
	"The government cannot shirk its own responsibility to tackle this serious and growing problem. It must stop relying on 'quick wins' to resolve a long-term problem."
	That sounds to me like new Labour's epitaph.

David Winnick: I have never previously seen a Front-Bench spokesman persistently refuse to give way. Be that as it may, are the Tories now making a commitment to keep the winter fuel allowance if they win the election?

Nigel Waterson: First, I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's initial remarks, which were rather churlish if I may say so. I have given way pretty promiscuously—including to him, on at least one occasion.
	I will not make any commitments two years from an election about what we are going to do; the hon. Gentleman is old enough and experienced enough to know that that is an unlikely scenario. When the election comes, we will have a detailed, thought-out and costed suite of policies designed to help pensioners, who will by then presumably be in even worse straits than they are now after a further two years of this disastrous, dithering and incompetent Government.
	In debating this important subject, we should not allow ourselves to get bogged down in dry statistics. These are flesh-and-blood issues. Poverty has a cancerous effect on our older citizens. It can affect their health, mental as well as physical; it can bring isolation and loneliness. In short, it can totally blight those later years of life when we all have some right to be free from unnecessary worry and stress. In its 1997 manifesto, Labour said:
	"We believe that all pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation."
	Surely, after 11 years in government, and with perhaps another two to go, it is high time to start living up to that promise. I commend the motion to the House.

Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"welcomes the policies of this Government to tackle pensioner poverty, which have lifted around two million pensioners out of absolute poverty and over one million out of relative poverty, and have led to spending of around £12 billion extra on pensioners compared with 1997; recognises that pension credit allows pensioners to live with dignity and rewards those who have saved for their own retirement; acknowledges the introduction of and increases to the winter fuel payment and further measures to ensure pensioners can keep warm; notes the provision of free off-peak bus travel granting freedom to pensioners and ensuring that they are not isolated in their own community; welcomes the long-term framework for pensions through the Pensions Act 2007, including relinking the basic state pension to average earnings and ensuring equality for women and carers with men by 2025; and further welcomes the private pension reforms in the Pensions Bill which will enable individuals to take personal responsibility for their own retirement."
	I waited in vain for the enunciation of the principles that we were going to hear—I expected something. Do Conservative Members really expect us to believe that they have somehow changed—that they have been transformed from the hard-faced Thatcherites who removed the earnings link and slashed pensioners' incomes into compassionate Conservatives? They delude themselves that their record of 18 years in government can so easily be consigned to the dustbin of history. Pensioners, above all, will remember. They lived through the Thatcher and Major periods, and they know that at the next election the choice will be clear—Conservative or Labour? The party that broke the link with earnings, or the party committed to restoring it? The party that consigned millions of pensioners to poverty, or the party that has lifted more than 2 million out of absolute poverty? The party that forced pensioners to live on £68 a week, or the party spending an extra £12 billion a year so that no pensioner need live on less than £124 per week?
	Let me say to the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), who sought to remind us of history, that in the year 1988-89 cold weather payments from the Conservative Government amounted to the grand sum of £2,510, compared with the party that in 2008-09 will pay £2 billion in winter fuel payments. That is the sort of thing that pensioners remember.

Peter Tapsell: The point that I was making was that a previous Labour Government abolished those payments altogether.

Mike O'Brien: The point that I was making is that this Government are making payments of £2 billion to pensioners in winter fuel payments and the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported were making payments of £2,500.
	There is a choice: the party that left thousands of pensioners to freeze in their homes because they could not pay their fuel bills, then put VAT on fuel, and then tried to double it to 17.5 per cent., or the party that has provided winter fuel payments to keep pensioners warm by helping them to pay their bills, and that after 1997 cut VAT on fuel from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent. One can imagine what fuel bills would be like today with VAT at 17.5 per cent. if John Major had got his way.

David Winnick: During the Tory years, were not the cold weather payments the only help with heating? Furthermore, it had to be freezing in a particular area for seven consecutive days—not five or six—and then there would be a single payment only to those on income support that amounted to about £6 or £7.

Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right, and pensioners remember that.
	Let us not forget private pensions either, because they were mentioned—the thousands cruelly robbed of their pensions in the 1980s and early 1990s through the Maxwell scandal, pension mis-selling and employers' pension holidays.

Michael Penning: rose—

Brooks Newmark: rose—

Mike O'Brien: Let me just make my point, and then I will happily give way.
	We had to clean up the private pensions mess by creating the pensions regulator to oversee private pension schemes, by creating the Pension Protection Fund to insure them and by ensuring that the Pensions Commission was able to undertake the biggest reform of pensions in a century and set out the parameters of the reform. We have taken that process on in the 2007 Act and in the current Pensions Bill, with the aim of bringing 9 million more people into private occupational pension schemes. Not only that, but we ensured in December, through the financial assistance scheme, that people such as the constituents of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) began to get the sort of justified result they needed for their pension schemes following the problems that they had when some of those schemes went down.

Michael Penning: The Minister is quite right: I am going to raise the matter of the 700 constituents who had their pensions stolen from them, and the 140,000 pensioners throughout the country—that is the minimum number—who had their pensions stolen. They had to wait five years for the Government to come up with the compensation that they deserved, after the Government had been dragged through the courts, and in front of the ombudsman, and found guilty. What would the Minister say to those of my constituents who are still waiting for compensation today? Some of them will be taxed at a rate of 40 per cent., not the 20 per cent. rate at which they should have been taxed at the time.

Mike O'Brien: As it happens, this morning I signed the order that will ensure that those payments are made. They should receive their payments very quickly. We took the order through the House recently so those payments should be made very shortly.

Michael Penning: That sounds like great news for my constituents and the other 140,000 who have been waiting for five years-plus for the compensation that they deserve. What about the taxation issue? Will they be taxed at 40 per cent. on the lump sum? Will those who would have been taxed at the 10p rate before the Government abolished it—the poorest of those pensioners—have to pay tax at the 20p rate now?

Mike O'Brien: On the reasons why the situation arose, and why his constituents had some difficulties when their pension scheme went down, the hon. Gentleman should remember that the regime under which the difficulties arose was created by the previous Conservative Government. His party is not without fault in that matter, and my party did arrange to compensate his constituents. On taxation, the people involved will be taxed, but will be able to refer that tax back to the period during which they would have otherwise received their payments. They will have to make arrangements with the taxman about how those payments are reclaimed, and they will be able to do so at the end of the year. We have, as he knows, consulted various people affected, including some of his constituents, to see what the best arrangements would be to deal with the matter.

Brooks Newmark: First, the Minister threw the name Maxwell at us as if that were going to be the thrust of his argument. Mr. Maxwell was a Labour Member of Parliament. Secondly, this Government have robbed £5 billion a year—£50 billion to date—from pensioners. Thirdly, we have the highest fuel tax in the whole of Europe. That is all driven by this Government.

Mike O'Brien: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that when we came to office in 1997, the amount of money spent by the state on pensioners was £62 billion a year. It is now £90 billion a year. A certain degree of humility on the part of his party is needed on the matter.

Rob Marris: I have to correct, indirectly, the figures that my hon. and learned Friend has given. The increase is much more than that. The increase in NHS spending is £60 billion a year, and two thirds of NHS spending, quite understandably and properly, goes on pensioners. The increase in NHS spending for pensioners amounts to £60 per week, per pensioner—all of which was opposed by the Opposition.

Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right. I was trying to be conservative in my use of figures, but he corrects me, quite rightly, to say that the amount that we are spending is much higher.
	The Conservatives scheduled the debate on 16 January, then cancelled it. They rescheduled it for 14 May, but cancelled again. From the cancellations, we concluded that today we would hear some announcement of a big policy on pensioner poverty that they had been developing. This was, after all, their big chance to launch a new initiative—perhaps something on pension credit or winter fuel payments, or a measure to deal with food prices—but all we have heard today is the same old things. They have flunked the test. They said that they were going to set out some principles, but we never heard any. They claimed that they had changed, that they were different and that they were going to look after pensioners—unlike during the 18 years of Conservative Government. Their thin disguise fools no one. All we have heard is the same old opportunist polemics and point scoring, the same fussy misuse of statistics and, most painful, the same old lack of substance. If anyone had any doubts, they now know that, on pensions, the Conservatives will not make a difference, because they have nothing new to say.

Nigel Waterson: Will the Minister give way?

Mike O'Brien: I give way to the hon. Gentleman in the hope that we will hear something new.

Nigel Waterson: The Minister chastised us for postponing the debate. I remind him that the last time it was fixed, then pulled, it was because we thought a debate on Burma was more urgent. I think that that was the right decision.
	What is significant is that the Conservative Opposition have called a debate on pensioner poverty and on the record of a Labour Government, who have failed so dismally. Does not that strike the Minister as a sign of the way in which politics has changed in recent years?

Mike O'Brien: Let us look at the record of this Government. This is the Government who have sought to help the poorest pensioners by substantially increasing, especially through pension credit, the amount of money that goes to them. Half the £12 billion increase—

Gerald Kaufman: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mike O'Brien: How can I refuse?

Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) has just boasted that this debate was called by the Conservatives because they care so much about pensioners, but 93 per cent. of Conservative MPs are absent from the Chamber.

Mike O'Brien: When judging who cares about them, pensioners will be able to compare the levels of caring, in terms of expenditure on pensioners, shown by the Conservative Governments of the past with the levels shown by the present Government.
	We have shown that we are taking constant action to help the poorest pensioners. Last week, for example, we announced measures to help the most vulnerable pensioners to reduce their fuel bills.

Pete Wishart: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Mike O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to make progress.
	We shall do that through data sharing with energy companies, so that the poorest pensioners can get more help with their fuel bills. Those measures come in addition to this year's payment, alongside the winter fuel payment, of an extra £100 for pensioner households with someone over 80, bringing their payment up to £400, and an extra £50 for households with someone over 60, bringing their payment up to £250. The Government have also agreed with the energy companies that, in addition, the companies will increase their funding for social assistance by £225 million, thereby reducing the bills of many vulnerable pensioners.
	The energy companies want to know where the poorest pensioners are, so that they can get them on the cheapest tariffs. We are prepared to share data with the energy companies through a trusted intermediary to enable the most vulnerable to have access to free home insulation, a beneficial fuel tariff, or even a cash rebate on their fuel bills. Allowing data sharing with energy companies is controversial, but as Age Concern, Help the Aged and others have said, the pressure of rising energy prices justifies that action.
	In the Pensions Bill, which is now in the other place, we intend to take a power to tell the energy companies which of their customers is on pension credit. The Bill will not be passed until November, so in the meantime I have offered the energy companies the facility this winter to send a mailshot or voucher to those in receipt of pension credit. Whether it will go to people aged over 70 is still being discussed. It is now up to the energy companies to take that up as part of their £225 million contribution. At a time of rising fuel bills, we are providing practical help for pensioners.

Pete Wishart: Is not the Minister ashamed that, under a new Labour Government, 47 per cent. of single pensioners and 324,000 pensioner households in Scotland are in fuel poverty? Is it not odd—even perverse—that that is the case in oil-rich Scotland, a net exporter of energy?

Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman's statistics are not accurate because they exclude, for example, council tax benefit and several other payments such as the winter fuel payment. His statistics, which I have seen cited elsewhere, are partial and inaccurate. Indeed, they suggest that those on low incomes are on much lower incomes than they are. Half of single pensioners have incomes of less than £7,600 after deducting tax, council tax and housing costs. The £6,000 figure excludes, for example, housing benefit and various earnings and investment income. The hon. Gentleman's statistics are simply wrong.

David Heath: I represent a rural area. It concerns me that many people who are in the most difficulty with their fuel bills cannot have gas and rely not on electricity but on fuel oil, the cost of which has gone up massively and will not be affected by the measures that the Government are introducing. They often live in old houses, which are the least amenable to sensible measures for reducing energy loss. Has the Minister any plans to help some of the least well off pensioners, who also live in the least helpful accommodation?

Mike O'Brien: The supply of heating oil is a difficult issue. The Government still believe that open competition between the companies is the best way in which to try to keep prices down. The Office of Fair Trading monitors the market for the supply of heating oil to consumers. For many years, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has tried to promote connections to the gas network for deprived communities, thereby reducing their reliance on domestic heating oil. That Department's design and demonstration unit has developed and tested a model for such connections where existing funding is available. Furthermore, the energy efficiency measures that are in place can help to reduce some fuel bills. Ofgem and Energywatch have organised a joint initiative, energy smart, which explores measures that can be taken to improve energy efficiency. I hope that those points help the hon. Gentleman, but I appreciate that there is a big problem.

Robert Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Mike O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I need to make progress. I have been generous in giving way.
	I hoped that Conservative Members would welcome our initiative to get fuel companies to provide extra help to the most vulnerable pensioners. After all, last year, they called for more help with rising fuel bills. Indeed, the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) said:
	"we have no opposition to... data sharing when it happens... for a defined purpose".—[ Official Report, 11 June 2007; Vol. 461, c. 600.]
	Yet last week, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) attacked our proposals for data sharing as "alarming" and accused us of trying to "spy" on people. We get attacks both when we are not data sharing and when we are data sharing. They are simply opportunist attacks. There is no consistency, policy or substance in the Conservatives' actions. They do not have a strategy on pensioner policy, simply a way of opportunist point scoring. My old teacher used to say that empty vessels make the most noise. The Conservative vessel is certainly noisy, but it is empty of policy and has a captain who is always chasing the latest breeze.
	Let me now deal with some of Conservative Members' more detailed claims because I welcome every opportunity to set our record against theirs. They say that pensioners are poorer. I will take no lessons on poverty from the Tories. In 1997, hundreds of thousands scraped a living on £68 a week. I remember the then Health Minister, Edwina Currie, simply telling pensioners that they had to wear long johns and woolly night caps to keep warm.
	Average pensioner incomes under Labour have risen by 29 per cent. in real terms since 1997, which, importantly, compares with an increase in average earnings of 16 per cent. Pensioners' incomes have therefore risen above average earnings. Pensioner households are £1,500 better off this year than under the 1997 system. We have focused help on the poorest, so that the poorest third are £2,100 better off. That means that pensioners are today less likely to be poor than many other groups of the population. This is the first time that that has been the case. It is not that there are no poor pensioners—there are—but, because of pension credit, winter fuel payments, free bus travel and the other measures that we have introduced, pensioners are less likely to be in the lowest group.

Nigel Waterson: This is an important point and I glad that the Minister has raised it, because he raised it in questions on Monday. Until relatively recently—I am talking weeks or a couple of months—the mantra from Ministers was that pensioners were now no more likely to be in poverty than the rest of the population. There was a sudden shift in the rhetoric on Monday, when the Minister said—I understand that he has said it again today—that pensioners are now less likely to be in poverty than the rest of the population. Can he explain at what moment that change took place and what the basis for it is?

Mike O'Brien: We have been looking into the statistics, and that is the current position. As we have put in place measures such as pension credit, the income of pensioners has risen, up to £124 in the case of a single pensioner. That is a significant help that other parts of the population cannot access. We heard some other strange uses of statistics from the hon. Gentleman. His view seemed to be that our pensioners were poorer than people in eastern Europe.

Nigel Waterson: indicated dissent.

Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman should perhaps just remind me of the countries that came up.

Nigel Waterson: I appreciate that the Minister's short-term memory may be failing, but I was quoting the EUROSTAT figures from the other day, which said that, among European Union countries, only pensioners in Latvia, Cyprus and Spain were more likely to fall into poverty than UK pensioners. I do not imagine that the Minister wants to contest that statistic.

Mike O'Brien: I certainly do want to contest that statistic, because it distorts the poverty data and the EUROSTAT statistics. Because we are a wealthier country, our poverty level in the EUROSTAT statistics is set higher than that for most European countries. That is the way the EUROSTAT statistics are set. For example, the UK poverty line is 13 times higher than Bulgaria's and seven times higher than Poland's. Our pensioners are therefore much better off than those in most other countries. When we take into account the basic state pension, pension credit, free TV licences, winter fuel payments and private pensions, our pensioners are better off than those in, say, France, Sweden, Denmark and similar countries. Our pensioners are much better off than those in most other European countries. Indeed, we are about fifth in the league and have moved way up since the Government came to power. The hon. Gentleman needs to be aware of that.
	Another issue that the hon. Gentleman raised was council tax, so let me say something about that. I know that pensioners are concerned about council tax increases—often, increases come from Conservative councils. We recognise that we need to help the most vulnerable, so this year is the 11th year in which we have increased local authority grants by more than the rate of inflation. By 2010-11, the increase in Government grant for local services since 1997 will be 45 per cent. higher than inflation. Council tax benefit is also important, because it goes to 2.5 million pensioner households.
	I heard hon. Members' comments on the difference between rural and urban areas. However, I represent a rural area in Warwickshire where, during the mid-90s, when John Major was Prime Minister, we had to join marches against school cuts. Teachers in Warwickshire were losing their jobs hand over fist as a result of cuts in local authority grant to that rural shire county. Under John Major, there was an 11 per cent. cut in policing. Today, police numbers are well up. There are no such marches or demonstrations at the moment, because we are funding local authorities better than the previous Conservative Government did, and if we had policies of the sort that they had, council tax would be even higher.
	We seek to improve how we help pensioners who are paying council tax. Many of them are finding it difficult, which is why it is a priority for us to achieve take-up of council tax benefit. It is encouraging to note that pensioner take-up of council tax benefit increased by 2 per cent. in 2005-06—the first increase in a long time—but we need to get more take-up.
	We think that about four out of 10 pensioners still fail to take up council tax benefit. That represents a massive £1.9 billion in unclaimed council tax benefit. The money is there and we are ready to provide it, but we cannot force people to take it. We want to encourage them to do so, and I note the suggestion that local authorities could write much more effectively to local people to achieve greater take-up.
	I hope that the automaticity of payments that we plan for this October will boost take-up next year. It will mean that pensioners who claim pension credit by telephone can also claim council tax benefit and housing benefit automatically, with minimum form filling and fuss.
	Let me say a quick word on the link. It always strikes me as odd when the Conservatives talk about the restoration of the earnings link. After all, they abolished it in 1983. This Government have enshrined in law their commitment to restoring the link. To make our position clear, we understand the desire for a specific date, but we have indicated that we would wish to restore it in 2012, or during the next Parliament, as the public finances and economy allow.
	I have to say that this is not just something that we regard as desirable; it is fundamental to the package of reforms that we are taking forward. It is the foundation stone—the building block—for many other reforms, not only in the state sector under the Pensions Act 2007, but in the Bill that we are taking through Parliament. Restoring the link will mean lifting many more people out of pensioner poverty, and we will ensure that people are better off when they are saving on a private pension. That is a fundamental building block of our reform and it will be done—it is the key to our policies—but we need to take account of the wider fiscal and economic conditions.
	The Conservatives also talked about other changes. I want to look at some of those. In the 1980s and 1990s, being old was the single biggest indicator of poverty, but under this Government pensioner poverty is down. Our record shows that, today, age is no longer a proxy for poverty.
	In relation to pensioner poverty, there is a bigger issue that I want to touch on. We are committed to dealing with pensioner poverty—from Keir Hardie and Frederick Rogers, who led the campaign for the first state pension, to Clement Attlee, who extended the right of a pension to all, and Barbara Castle, who fought for better second pensions for older people—and we will continue to build on their legacy, targeting support on those most in need.
	Today, the challenges of ageing stretch beyond financial poverty. I want to talk about how our ageing society presents us with new challenges. While it is still important that we address poverty—that must be the first priority—the challenges stretch wider than material well-being. The poverty of experience in old age and people's lack of control over their own lives need to be addressed. We are developing a comprehensive strategy to ensure that old age is a time of opportunity and enjoyment, rather than merely struggle and endurance.
	Through our public service agreement, we want all Departments and local authorities to ensure that their policies and services better meet the needs of older people. Just as Beveridge identified the five giants he wanted to slay, I shall identify the five giants of old age with which we as a society—not just the Government—must get to grips in the decades ahead.
	The first is, of course, poverty. Our second challenge is to tackle the problems of frailty, both physical and mental, so that the onset of dementia or the loss of mobility does not mean that an older person becomes detached from society; rather, their life should be lived with some dignity and some respect. Thirdly, we must tackle discrimination, so that the 70-year-old who is still bursting with energy can continue to work and perhaps re-train in order to volunteer or contribute in some other way as an active member of the community. I echo what was said by the Prime Minister during Prime Minister's Question Time: I, too, look forward to the new equalities Bill.
	The fourth challenge is to tackle fear, so that older people feel confident in their homes and free to walk in their local streets, taking advantage of the public space that encourages interaction with others of all ages. The recent report by the World Health Organisation on age-friendly cities made particularly good points about that. The fifth challenge is perhaps the most difficult, and relates directly to pensioner poverty. We must tackle loneliness, so that the pensioner who lives alone, often isolated in a flat—talking to no one for a week, watching television—can find out where to go to make some friends, and can be encouraged to socialise or help in the local community.
	We need progress on those new challenges to our ageing society, and we will build on our record of tackling poverty to ensure that we deal with them as well. Our Government are committed to tackling poverty and improving the lives of older people. Our achievements since 1997 are in sharp contrast to the empty rhetoric and cheap soundbites of Opposition Members, and my commitment today is that we will not rest here. In 1997 we spent £62 billion on pensioners; in 2008 the figure has risen to £90 billion, and is projected to rise to £264 billion as a result of our reforms. We are the party with the belief, the energy and the passion to do more for our pensioners. We will continue to champion social justice, so that we can continue to build a society based on fairness and opportunity for both the young and the old.

Jennifer Willott: A Labour Back-Bencher told me yesterday that pensioners had never had it so good. While that may well be the case for some middle-class pensioners who bought their houses in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s or 1980s—although they may be starting to get a little worried now—many pensioners are living close to, if not on, the poverty line. Many others are not below the poverty line only because they have undergone a complicated and intrusive process in order to claim means-tested benefits.
	I agree with all the points made in the motion, although there is an important omission. It is the one thing on which the Conservatives are holding back: an immediate restoration of the link between pensions and earnings. I shall say more about that later.
	When Labour came to power 11 years ago, they promised so much for pensioners. For some pensioners, life has improved. A huge 4 per cent. fewer of them live in poverty than in 1997, which represents progress, albeit a small amount. On the whole, however, pensioner poverty has remained fairly stagnant under Labour. According to the Government's own figures, 2.2 million pensioners are living in poverty after housing costs, compared with 2.4 million in 1997. The Minister looks confused, but those are the Government's figures. That equates to 21 per cent. of pensioners compared with 25 per cent. in 1997. However, given that in 1908, when the state pension was first introduced, 1.3 million people were considered to be paupers, the fact that 2.2 million pensioners in the same age category are now living in poverty strikes me as a slightly worrying trend.
	There has been some improvement in one area. Because the minimum income guarantee and pension credit are uprated in line with earnings, unlike the basic state pension, fewer pensioners have slipped into poverty. However, the absence of a larger problem is not necessarily much cause for celebration.
	A big problem with Labour's approach to pensioner poverty is its reliance on means-testing, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members today. The 2005-06 figures for the take-up of pension credit showed a rate of 65 per cent., or 2.6 million households. The Government estimate that 1.7 million people are missing out, and they are giving up on them by not pushing any further to increase take-up. The Government accept that they are not achieving that public service agreement target.
	The Department's annual report, which I am sure all hon. Members would agree makes gripping reading, said that in November 2007, 2.73 million households were receiving pension credit. That is positive, because it was a slight increase on the figure for 2005-06, but it prompts a question about information. Clearly, more data are available to the Department than have been published, and it is disappointing that that information was not made available for scrutiny as soon as possible. It would be interesting to know what other data the Department holds that have not been published.

John Barrett: Does my hon. Friend agree that on the several occasions when the Minister has said that those who are most in need are receiving pension credit, he has omitted to say that those who are most in need are those who are entitled to pension credit but are not getting it?

Jennifer Willott: Absolutely; that is a valid point, and I thank my hon. Friend for making it.
	It is not just the take-up of pension credit that we should be concerned about. Several hon. Members have mentioned the take-up of housing benefit and council tax benefit, although I think we all accept that housing benefit is less of an issue than council tax benefit. According to the 2005-06 figures, the take-up of housing benefit was about 85 per cent., which still left more than 300,000 people who were eligible to claim it but did not. Indeed, the figures were worse in 2005-06 than under the last Conservative Government. The worst of the lot was council tax benefit, for which the take-up among pensioners was about 57 per cent. Therefore, about 2.1 million people in pensioner households were eligible for that benefit but did not claim it. Again, the figure was worse than that under the last Conservative Government.

Anne Begg: How do the Liberal Democrats aim to end pensioner poverty if they are setting their face against targeting help at the poorest pensioners? I might be wrong, of course; perhaps they are not setting their face against it. The only way to target help at the poorest pensioners is through means-testing.

Jennifer Willott: I shall come to that point later, and I shall explain exactly what the Liberal Democrats would do that would make a difference.
	Given that Labour's reliance on means-testing is a fundamental part of its targeting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) has said, it must be disappointed by the number of people who, by its own definition, should be claiming the benefit but are not, and who therefore are not getting the money that they need.
	In July 2006, the National Audit Office published a report on Labour's progress on improving the take-up rate of benefits among pensioners in which it said that the PSA target on pension credit would not be met. Why has it taken the Government two years to reach the same conclusion? The same report suggested that the Government should improve the range of data that they collect on who is not claiming the benefit, and should share those data with the Pension Service and local services so that people in need can be better targeted. The report also said that the Government should allow more local autonomy so that local service providers could better target pockets of low take-up.

Mike O'Brien: May I begin by welcoming the hon. Lady to her new position? I hope that we will work closely on pension issues in the coming months.
	On the report from which the hon. Lady quoted and her suggestion that information on the PSA target has not been in the public realm for two years, she should be aware that the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, told the Select Committee on Work and Pensions in July 2006 that the target was not expected to be met.

Jennifer Willott: If the Minister will allow me to say so, I think that he has confused two different issues that I have raised. One related to the information that the Department holds that is not in the public domain. I also referred specifically to the statistics in the annual report relating to November 2007. On the question whether the target was going to be met or dropped, there is a world of difference between a Minister telling a Select Committee that the target is likely to be missed and the Department actually acknowledging that and dropping the target. Those are two separate things.

Mike O'Brien: If the hon. Lady checks the record—I say this gently to her—she will find that there was a ministerial statement at the time.

Jennifer Willott: I will indeed go and have a look at that.

Nigel Waterson: I join the Minister in welcoming the hon. Lady to her new position. Does she agree that none of this is terribly important when compared with the reality that this is indeed a target that the Government have abandoned? There are still 1.7 million people who are not getting the pension credit to which they are entitled. Indeed, when the Government introduced the pension credit, the Treasury calculated that 1.4 million people would never claim it. The Government have therefore always cynically assumed that large numbers of people would never get round to claiming it.

Jennifer Willott: Indeed; that is a valid point. Perhaps it is because the initial estimate was that 1.4 million people would not claim pension credit that the Government have assumed that 1.7 million is close enough to that figure for them to let the target quietly drop.
	Will the Minister tell us, when he winds up the debate later, whether the suggestions made by the National Audit Office in 2006 were looked at and attempted before it was decided to drop the PSA target? The Government appear instead to have focused on gimmicks such as the pensioner Christmas bonus—a generous £10, I believe—which will not do very much to help, with food inflation at its present rate.
	One of the major reasons pensioners are falling behind the rest of the population is that, since the Conservative Government broke the link with earnings in the 1980s, the basic state pension is uprated only in relation to prices. I concur with the Minister that that is a fundamental cause of many of the problems that pensioners now have with poverty. If they do not qualify for pension credit, they can get poorer in relation to the rest of the population as they get older, as the value of their pension diminishes. The Tories did a huge amount of damage between 1979 and 1997, reducing the basic state pension from 26 per cent. of average earnings to 17 per cent. That represents a huge drop over 18 years. Unfortunately, it has dropped even further under Labour, and it is now just 15 per cent. of average earnings.
	Different European countries have already been mentioned, and I shall now throw another one into the mix. The value of our basic state pension, at 15 per cent. of average earnings, is worse than in the overwhelming majority of European countries—and not just the ones that we might expect, such as Sweden and Norway. That proportion is also worse than in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy and Portugal. Our basic state pension is worth less in relation to wages now than it was in 1978, 1958 or even 1908.

Anne Begg: It was remiss of me not to congratulate the hon. Lady, my ex-Select Committee colleague, on her promotion when I last intervened on her. Perhaps she is being disingenuous in making these comparisons. She says that the basic state pension in Britain is worse than that of Italy, but I am sure that she knows—as I do, having met some Italian politicians—that there is very little second pension provision in Italy. Almost all pensioners there depend almost wholly on the state pension. The relative wealth of pensioners in the two countries is therefore quite different, and in Britain our pensioners are much better off.

Jennifer Willott: I was making a specific point about the basic state pension because, as the hon. Lady points out, there are different systems in the different European countries. In the UK, we rely significantly more on private provision than is the case in some other European countries. I was commenting not on the overall income that pensioners receive, but specifically on the basic state pension.

Michael Penning: The hon. Lady raises an important point. Traditionally, we have relied on private provision, but she will know from her own figures that that is now in massive decline, and that that has a lot to do with people's fear of having their pension robbed by the Government.

Jennifer Willott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution to the debate. I would like to turn to the issue of women's pensions.

Brian Jenkins: To put the record straight, the lack of confidence in private pensions came about solely because of the tremendous scandal of the mis-selling of private pensions in this country, orchestrated by the Conservative party when it was in government. [Hon. Members: "Orchestrated?"] Orchestrated, yes.

Jennifer Willott: I would rather not get into the politics of who did what to whom on private pensions, but there are a number of reasons why people are very concerned about saving in private pensions; mis-selling is one, but there are also examples such as Allied Steel and Wire and other cases mentioned earlier where people lost their pensions. People are also concerned that through means-testing, they will lose out on more than they have saved; the disincentive of means-testing puts people off saving through private schemes.
	Women's pensions concern me. Currently, around 30 per cent. of women retire on a full state pension, in comparison with about 80 per cent. of men—a huge disparity. I know that Members on both sides are concerned about this and everybody wants to see progress made. But 2025 is a long time to wait for equality for women pensioners and millions of women are written off in the meantime. Even with the current pension reforms, nearly 40 per cent. of women will not get a full basic state pension in 2018. That seems to me far too far down the line for us to be making progress. We have a sexist system—designed by men for men—that has, over the decades, been to the detriment of women pensioners.

Mike O'Brien: The way in which the hon. Lady is using these statistics is questionable. She knows very well that, following the 2007 Act, as from 2010—not so long to wait—75 per cent. of women will become eligible for a full basic state pension. She is right to say that it will rise over the following decade and a half to 90 per cent., or full equality. But the big jump will take place in 2010 for carers and for women who will be able to get a full basic state pension.

Michael Penning: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the Minister keeps making interventions after making a long speech at the start, there will be no time for Back Benchers to contribute to this very important debate. Is there any way you can stop the Minister getting up?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is for the hon. Member with the Floor to decide whether they give way or not. It has nothing to do with the Chair.

Jennifer Willott: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and on that note I shall refuse all interventions from both sides of the House until the end of my speech.

John Barrett: Apart from one?

Jennifer Willott: Apart from one from my colleague.

John Barrett: I thank my hon. Friend for being very generous. On women's pensions, would it not be a good thing for the Government to allow women to increase their national insurance contributions by buying back previous years' contributions?

Jennifer Willott: Absolutely. The reason I allowed my hon. Friend to intervene was that he had been trying to get in before the point of order. He made a valid point. The Government had a chance to solve the issue once and for all with the Pensions Act 2007, but like Opposition Members here and in another place, we are concerned that they have not done so and have blown the chance they had.
	Let me move on to the Conservative party. As the Minister said, this seems to be a strange topic for the Conservatives to have chosen. It is clearly a hugely important issue but, as we have seen, the Conservatives have had nothing new to say at all. They also have nothing to be proud of when it comes to their record on pensioner poverty. The only concrete commitment they have made in the past few years to tackle pensioner poverty was the commitment in their 2005 election manifesto to restore the pensions link to earnings immediately, but that was dropped under the leadership of David Cameron. They have not made any new proposals—

Nigel Waterson: rose—

Jennifer Willott: I am afraid that I am not going to give way. I may allow some interventions at the end.  [ Interruption. ]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Lady giving way?

Jennifer Willott: No.

Nigel Waterson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady cannot say that she is not going to allow interventions if she then provokes interventions by misrepresenting other parties' policies.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I just remind hon. Members of what was said earlier: it depends on whether or not the Member who has the Floor chooses to give way. If anything needs to be corrected, there may well be opportunities to do that later.

Michael Penning: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott) cited a Member of this House by name in her previous contribution. Surely that remark should be withdrawn, as there is no time for a response to it.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have made the point that there may well be an opportunity for a response to be made. The hon. Lady certainly made a reference by name, and I remind her that it is usual in the course of debate to refer to hon. Members' constituencies, rather than their names.

Jennifer Willott: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a relatively new Member of the House, I find it difficult trying to remember 646 constituency names. As I said before the points of order, I will allow interventions later, should hon. Members wish to make them then, but I want to make some progress now because I know that a number of Back Benchers wish to speak.
	In the final three years of the previous Conservative Government, pensioner poverty levels remained roughly constant, at about 2.4 million before housing costs are taken into account and about 2.9 million after housing costs are taken into account. Those figures are higher than the levels under this Labour Government. Income support for pensioners under the Conservatives was worth 18 per cent. of average earnings, whereas pension credit is now worth about 21 per cent. The take-up of income support by pensioners in 1997 was about 65 per cent., which is almost the same as the current figure. The Conservatives did not crack the problem either. Admittedly, they did have slightly better take-up rates of council tax benefit and housing benefit than the Labour Government have achieved, but hundreds of thousands of pensioners still missed out on what they were due.
	The biggest error that the Conservatives made was when the former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, broke the pensions and earnings link in the 1980s. For all the soft words that the Conservatives have spoken on pensioner poverty, they have not made a concrete commitment to reinstate the earnings link at a particular point in time, unlike the Liberal Democrats. Despite the Conservatives' making a clear commitment before the previous election—it was made both by the then shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), and in the election manifesto—and despite the fact that they have been pressing the Government on this point repeatedly, they still have not said when they would reinstate the earnings link.
	As befits the party that first introduced the state pension 100 years ago—the then Liberal party introduced it—the Lib Dems have the most radical solutions on reducing pensioner poverty. We are not tinkering around the edges. First, we would restore the earnings link immediately. I shall answer the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg)—

Anne Begg: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jennifer Willott: Not for the moment. The Liberal Democrats would restore the earnings link immediately, so that pensioners stop falling further and further behind the rest of the population, and then we would introduce a radical overhaul of the basic state pension. We would increase it by up to £130 a month for single pensioners, and by up to £220 a month for couples. We would base entitlement on residency, not on national insurance contributions, and that would particularly help carers and women who have taken time out to bring up children. Such an approach would also reduce significantly the means-testing requirements. As well as improving income levels, it would encourage and support private saving, because it would remove the disincentive that has been introduced by significant levels of means-testing. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) referred to that. Those proposals would eventually remove 3.5 million pensioners from means-testing, and would reduce the projected levels of means-testing from the current estimate of 40 to 50 per cent., to about 10 per cent. The problems that having such high levels of means-testing will generate have been flagged up.
	We need to tackle the cost of living for pensioners, rather than just their income levels. As has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, one of the biggest problems is council tax. Scrapping that and replacing it with a fairer system based on people's income—the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) discussed that—would make a huge difference to pensioners' disposable income. There are also real concerns about fuel poverty and the cost of other items of household expenditure.
	The cost of food and fuel has risen significantly, especially recently. Since pensioners spend on average a third of their income on food and fuel, their inflation rate this year is much higher than the national indices produced by the Government. Estimates were produced in January that showed that inflation for pensioners will reach 7 per cent. in 2008. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne said earlier, it may be as high as 9 per cent., or more than double the national inflation estimate. At the same time as pensioners' income is falling behind that of the rest of the population, the pensioners' price index is significantly outstripping RPI, and that is a disturbing trend.
	Fuel poverty is an issue that I have been concerned about for some time, even before I took on my present role. I represent a Welsh constituency and Wales has much higher levels of fuel poverty than other parts of the UK. It is good to see others taking up the issue and I welcome some of the moves that the Government have made recently to try to tackle the problem by working more closely with energy companies. We have already reached a crisis point on the issue. The number of households in fuel poverty has more than doubled since 2004 and the average energy bill is more than £1,000 this year, which is a huge amount for poor families and pensioners to pay.
	In 2005, there were 1,500 excess winter deaths among pensioners in Wales alone, so the figures for the UK as a whole are very worrying. People are dying partly because they cannot afford adequate heating, and that should not be allowed to happen in a civilised country such as ours. We need a much more concerted effort to tackle that issue, and I am glad to see the Government taking the first steps.
	The Government have made some progress, but they are grinding to a halt with their abandonment of the PSA target—at the worst possible time, given rising prices, increasing fuel poverty and the basic state pension reducing in value year on year. While I agree with the motion, the important missing element is a commitment to a date for the restoration of the earnings link. The Conservatives are pussyfooting around on the issue and making no firm commitments. Given that the last time that they were in power the situation of pensioners worsened, we have to ask why it would be any different next time.
	The state pension was introduced by a Liberal Government 100 years ago this year, and we are still the only party making radical proposals.

Gerald Kaufman: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott). Although she is new to her role, she has fallen immediately into the trap for Liberal Democrat spokespeople on any subject—making unrealisable promises, made because Liberal Democrats know that they will never be in a position to fulfil any of the commitments that they make. It is easy for them, because it is only words.
	I have a great personal regard for the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and I always enjoy listening to him. However, I have to say how sorry I am that he has been used as the front man for a Conservative debate on pensions that is one of the most opportunistic debates in which I have ever participated or to which I have listened. Listening to Conservatives bewailing the plight of pensioners is like listening to Scrooge singing, "Have yourself a merry little Christmas". It does not come credibly from a party that had an appalling record on pensions in the 18 years for which it held office before Labour regained power in 1997. The hon. Gentleman explained to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister how keen the Opposition were to debate pensions, despite the fact that they have postponed the debate twice. The hon. Gentleman did not point out that today is one of the Tory party's days for choosing the subject, but throughout the debate on this issue, which the Conservatives claim is of such importance to their party, 93 per cent. of the Conservative Members of the House of Commons have been absent. It is their day, and it for them to produce speakers and people to listen to those speakers.
	As I said, the Conservative voice on pensions is very difficult to accept as credible. For example, we had an intervention from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who has now very sensibly made himself scarce. The right hon. Gentleman inveighed against the cost of fuel, yet it was he who, as a member of the Conservative Government, voted for the Norman Lamont Budget that introduced the annual built-in fuel tax escalator. As I said during Question Time the other day, there is no point in the Conservatives' staging debates and producing commitments when we look at their record. As Aneurin Bevan said, "Why look into the crystal when you can read the book?" The book of the Conservative party's record on pensions is one of the most abysmal of those on all the subjects with which it has been involved in the House of Commons.

Graham Stuart: Someone who has been in this House as long as the right hon. Gentleman and who is as highly regarded as he is on both sides of the House should surely not seek to make his whole speech on such a serious subject into an attack on the Conservative party, as if Conservative Members have no interest in the subject of pensioner poverty. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has said, in 1997 the Conservative party left one of the strongest and best pension systems in Europe. It has been destroyed by the Government of whom he is a Member.

Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman is a very charming Member and I take his intervention seriously. He refers to my service in this House. When I was first elected, during my first Parliament, we used to have general subject debates on Fridays. I made a political speech and the predecessor of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, Sir Charles Taylor, came up to me at the end of the debate and said, "You are a new Member and therefore I think I should explain to you that we keep politics out of debates on Fridays." The fact is that the House of Commons is all about politics. Not one of us would be sitting here on either side of the House without politics. When we are elected, we deal with subjects of profound interest and concern to many millions of people in this country, but the very idea that one can debate a subject such as pensions, or the national health service or law and order, without having a political basis for what one is talking about is very odd.
	The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central provided us with a huge number of statistics, which peppered her speech in the intervals between her making commitments that she will never be called on to carry out. The intervention made by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) makes me wonder how he got here. I think that he fought an election campaign as a Conservative candidate and that he talked politics during his campaign. I have the highest possible regard for him as an individual, but I say to him that it is about politics. Without politics, we would not have elections and we would not be able to carry things out. That is my response to him.

Anne Begg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that whenever a politician says that we should not bring party politics into a debate, it is because they have lost the argument?

Gerald Kaufman: As always, what my hon. Friend says is accurate.
	The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central and others referred to the earnings link. The earnings link was broken by a Conservative Government in 1980. If they had not done that as a deliberate act of policy, which was announced by their Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, there would be no debate about restoring the earnings link, or when to do so, because it would never have been broken. Breaking the link forms part of the Conservatives' record. Our Government have legislated to restore the earnings link. I wish that they could restore it sooner, but at least they have legislated.

Nigel Waterson: As always, I am listening closely to what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. If it was so outrageous of the wicked Tories to scrap the earnings link in 1980, why have the Labour Government done nothing about it over 11 years, and why might they do nothing about it until 2015—and perhaps not even then?

Gerald Kaufman: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accurately expects a Labour Government to be in office in 2015, as they will be, with me as a Back Bencher to support them. He will remember that when we were elected in 1997, we made a commitment to abide by spending and taxation levels as an act of fiscal responsibility. Of course I would like the link to be restored sooner—I will campaign for that—but let us be clear that it is no good for him to be moaning and wailing about our not putting right as quickly as some people would like something that the Conservatives put wrong deliberately.
	When the Government introduced winter fuel payments in November 1997, the Conservative party derided the payments. It said that they were a gimmick and implied that it would get rid of them. It was only when it turned out that winter fuel payments were popular and helpful for pensioners that the Conservative party backtracked. When Conservative Members talk about the value of winter fuel payments and about poverty for pensioners, they must take account of the fact that they are complaining that something initiated by a Labour Government should be improved still further. That is quite true, but let us not forget that without a Labour Government, there would not have been winter fuel payments. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that pensioners know that.
	The hon. Gentleman complained about the take-up and availability of the Warm Front scheme. Constituents write to me, as no doubt they write to him, about their wish to be involved in the scheme, but who created the scheme? The Labour Government did so in 2000. The scheme never existed under a Conservative Government. For Conservative Members to say that there is not enough take-up of the scheme is for them to admit that the scheme is valuable, which makes one wonder why the Conservative party never introduced it. When constituents ask me to do so, I visit them in their homes to discuss issues if they are not well enough or mobile enough to come and see me at my constituency surgery. When the Conservatives were in government, in winter constituents would ask me to visit in the early afternoon, because as soon as it got dark they would go to bed, as they could not afford to heat their houses. They lived in misery.
	The Liberal Democrat party seems to believe that the issue is simply about reeling out a succession of statistics. The issue of pensioner poverty is of course to do with money, but in the end it is a human problem. As hon. Members have said, pensioners are living longer and longer because of the creation of the welfare state and because of the way in which health services assist pensioners. That involves the possibility of pensioners living alone and having to spend time alone. If their relatives do not live near them, they have the problem of loneliness, and the problem of participation in the general life of the community. That is a very important point. There is absolutely no doubt that money is very important for pensioners, but they also need the possibility of company. They need drop-in centres and the availability of all kinds of other facilities to make them feel that they are not on their own and are part of a community.
	I do not for a moment say that the Government have solved the problem of poverty among pensioners. Of course they have not, and I very much doubt whether any Government will totally solve it, because there are more and more pensioners the whole time. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central mentioned the number of people who were helped as a result of the creation of the old-age pension by Lloyd George. There are now 11 million people of pensionable age—a huge proportion of the population. Their need for the public services created by the state grows and grows.
	From time to time, I discuss with the chief executive of the Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospital NHS Trust the issues that he has to deal with, and one of them is the fact that because pensioners are living longer and longer—that is a good thing, of course—they contract illnesses that they would not otherwise have lived to contract. Of course they require the services of the NHS. They require hospital space.
	One of the problems that we did solve—my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) solved it when we came to office in 1997—was bed blocking, and the fact that pensioners could not be discharged from hospital because there were no carers to look after them. At the time, there were no spaces in care homes, which the Conservatives had privatised. We solved that problem, but the fact is that pensioners will draw disproportionately on the services of the NHS because it is in the nature of ageing that they will contract all kinds of ailments that they would previously never have lived to contract.
	What have we done on the issue? In his impressive account of the Government's record, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Pensions Reform mentioned that 3 million old-age pensioner households have been lifted out of poverty since 1997, that the basic state pension has risen above inflation every year since 2000, and that 3.3 million senior citizens receive pension credit. This very April we introduced free local bus travel for every pensioner as a right throughout the United Kingdom. The ability to travel and see family members is extremely important to counteract pensioner loneliness. We did that.

John Penrose: On the point about pension credit, does the right hon. Gentleman encounter the same problem as I do in my surgeries, where pensioners come in and complain about the endless bureaucracy involved in claiming it successfully? Is he aware that the pension credit application form is 17 pages long, with 18 pages of explanatory notes? Does he agree that simplifying the design of both the pension credit and the form would dramatically improve take-up and therefore reduce pensioner poverty significantly?

Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman is probably right, and I agree that complicated forms are awkward not only for pensioners, but for all members of society who have to fill them in. I acknowledge that, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister is working, as he indicated he was, to improve the situation. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but the credit exists only because the Labour Government created it.
	I accept that there are problems, which is why there is not 100 per cent. take-up, but the Government deserve congratulation for having created the pension credit, just as we created the winter fuel payment; 11.7 million pensioners in 8.6 million households are benefiting from winter fuel payments. One of the merits of that, which goes back to the intervention of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), is that pensioners do not have to fill in a single form in order to claim the benefit. It comes through the post automatically. That is very good indeed. Without the Labour Government, there would never have been a winter fuel payment.
	The hon. Member for Eastbourne spoke about Warm Front. There are grants of up to £4,000 to insulate homes. With reference to the television licence, I wish—I campaigned on this in the past—the Government felt able financially to provide free television licences to all pensioners. As everybody will acknowledge, the cost is substantial, but 3.3 million pensioner households are benefiting from the free TV licences for those aged 75 and over. The Government have introduced free passports for 4.5 million senior citizens aged 75 and over. They have restored free eye tests to 6.6 million pensioners. All those are achievements by the Labour Government.
	I regard as one of the Government's most dazzling achievements the fact that there are now free flu inoculations for all 11 million pensioners every year as winter approaches. I am just slightly over the age at which one qualifies for the flu inoculation. What I find interesting is that the health centre at which I am registered sends me a letter asking me to apply for a date and a time when I can go for my flu inoculation. When that is fixed, I go there and I am given the inoculation without a wait at the precise time that has been arranged. I regard that as a dazzling act of efficiency that the Government have been able to achieve. Anybody who has used the national health service—I certainly have, and I am sure that every other hon. Member has—must be impressed by the dedication of its staff. In just over a month, on 5 July, we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the national health service. The Conservative party, in this House of Commons, voted against the creation of the service, which now provides such benefits to pensioners.
	We will never be able to do enough for pensioners. Individually, as families and through pressure groups, pensioners are right to press Members of Parliament and the Government to do more for them the whole time. I will always join in on that, because our pensioners have gone through two wars and have worked hard for this country. They deserve dignity and comfort in retirement. Yes—let us go on pushing and pressing, regularly and frequently, for improvements in the situation of pensioners. But I will take no lectures from the Conservative party, whose record on the issue is appalling. The record of this Government, however, is one of which I am proud.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Brooks Newmark.

Charles Walker: Hurrah!

Brooks Newmark: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I assume that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) is cheering because he is looking forward to what I have to say on this important subject.
	We all have to cope with a rising cost of living and a record burden of tax from a Government who have clearly run out of money. However, we should regard the fact that that burden falls disproportionately on pensioners—some of the most vulnerable people in our society—as a disgrace. The real cost of living is increasing steadily, and that is all the more apparent for pensioners living on low or fixed incomes. Recent research highlights the fact that inflation for the elderly is more than a third higher than the official consumer prices index rate, at 3.4 per cent. As we have heard today, the elderly spend a higher proportion of their income on the bare necessities and less on consumer goods.
	However, the numbers themselves do not tell the whole story of pensioners in my semi-rural constituency; they are struggling to run a car, and struggling with rising energy bills and the rising cost of a pint of milk and a loaf of bread. I want to focus on just two themes: fuel poverty and the Government's addiction to the means-testing of pensioners.
	Rising energy costs are inconvenient to almost everybody, but they are potentially deadly to pensioners. Earlier this year, I wrote to the chief executive of EDF Energy, which supplies many of my constituents in Braintree and Witham, to ask what steps the company was taking to lighten the load of fuel poverty, which is falling on vulnerable people, particularly pensioners. The response that I received drew my attention to EDF's very welcome social tariff, which offers a 15 per cent. discount on energy bills for those in receipt of income support or pension credit or who are recognised as living in fuel poverty because they spend more than 10 per cent. of their annual income on energy. Nevertheless, a percentage discount of that kind becomes less and less relevant as the underlying cost continues to spiral upwards. The scheme will need to be kept under review, particularly as some energy suppliers have raised their tariffs by more than 15 per cent. already this year and average fuel bills have risen by 60 per cent. in the past four years.
	I have two further observations, applicable to both the private sector and the Government in their respective responses to pensioner poverty, the first of which is short-termism. EDF, for instance, confirmed that its scheme is guaranteed to continue until March of next year, but not beyond. Similarly, the Government have shown time and again that they also favour short-term solutions to pensioner poverty; this year's Budget offered another one-off payment for pensioners, who would rather have a sustainable income. I have previously addressed this issue at some length with the Prime Minister. When the Treasury Committee considered the 2006 Budget, I reminded the right hon. Gentleman of Help the Aged's view of the failure to repeat a £200 council tax rebate for pensioners:
	"The Government issued a pre-election bribe last year but they have not renewed it for 2006. This exposes a shameful level of political expediency".
	When I asked the Prime Minister what had changed since the general election, he said:
	"What has changed is we said in the last Budget that this was for the year and we made no commitment for it beyond that."
	Unfortunately, this culture of Government living from year to year, devoid of long-term planning, does little to help the vulnerable pensioners who are living from hand to mouth day by day.

John Penrose: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the causes of today's short-termism is almost certainly the Government's tight financial circumstances? We have already seen, with the 10p tax U-turn and with Northern Rock, the pressure that has been created on the Government's three financial tests. They had no headroom to make such short-term measures become sustainable longer-term measures. The reason for their short-term thinking is the financial pressures that they have landed themselves in.

Brooks Newmark: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is happening across the board throughout all public services. The pre-Budget report and the Budget showed that the Government are having to make cut after cut, and the people paying the price are the vulnerable—the poorest in our society, particularly pensioners.
	We have seen all too recently what happens to a Government fearing annihilation in local elections and by-elections—they feel free to make costly electoral bribes with taxpayers' money. Unfortunately, we have also seen the doubling of council tax over the past decade, met with rebates that then vanish after the electoral dust has settled. Now there is an additional one-off winter fuel payment of £100 for 2008-09. There has also been an increase in personal allowances partially to compensate those who lost out from the doubling of the 10p rate, which, again, will vanish when the year is up. The common theme in all the Government's disingenuous ingenuity is the short time horizon for additional support offered to the elderly and the vulnerable. This is not a helpful approach for those who are on low and fixed incomes and whose savings have been systematically eroded by the Government's ever-increasing dependence on means-testing.
	My second observation concerns the challenge of increasing uptake. A total of 55,000 people are currently on EDF Energy's reduced social tariff, although the chief executive was unable to tell me how many of them fell within my constituency. I am glad that the private sector is taking action, and I hope that more will be done to promote uptake amongst pensioners and other vulnerable people. Yet the Government's response to pensioner fuel poverty has been an expensive awareness campaign through Citizens Advice that is unlikely to reach the most vulnerable pensioners who do not take the initiative to seek such advice. On the DWP's own figures, between 1.1 million and 1.7 million pensioners are not claiming the help that they are entitled to, and the Department even admits that the numbers responding to its campaigns to increase uptake are steadily decreasing over time.
	More worrying still is the proposal for even more invasive data sharing between the Government and the energy companies—a point eloquently made earlier in the week by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan). If a major energy supplier such as EDF does not hold data that can tell me how many people in my constituency—or in Braintree district, if that is easier for it—already make use of its own scheme, I have little confidence in entrusting it with the personal data of millions of vulnerable pensioners.
	The elephant in the room concerning uptake remains the Government's utter failure to address their reliance on the principle of means-testing pensioners. The first question that I ever asked the former Prime Minister, in response to the concerns of the Braintree Pensioners Action Group, addressed that very point and it is something that I have since followed up with his successor. The current Prime Minister has told me:
	"Our aim is to link tax and benefits for pensioners in a way that there is a seamless transition through the benefit and tax system."
	But outside his own parallel universe, the interaction of the tax and benefit systems has so many burst seams that the stuffing is falling out completely. The Government are still trying to compensate for the heavier tax burden and higher costs of living facing pensioners by relying on one-off bribes and means-tested benefits that pensioners find complicated and inaccessible. As many hon. Members do, I routinely see pensioners who qualify for means-tested benefits but do not understand their entitlement, even if they happen to receive it, because they are forced to plough through page after page of abstruse computer-generated calculations. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) made that point.
	The Prime Minister has also told me that the complexity does not matter so much because:
	"What we have reduced is the amount of means-testing that is done for pensioners."
	Bah, humbug! But there are still 3.74 million people over the age of 60 in receipt of means-tested benefits and many more who are entitled to claim but do not do so. Help the Aged identifies a staggering sum of up to £4.5 billion that lies unclaimed each year. Furthermore, half of those pensioners entitled to council tax benefit do not claim it. Once again, there is a disconnect between the Prime Minister's rhetoric on means-testing and the reality of stagnating uptake, a declining savings culture and an ongoing failure to reach those pensioners who are most in need of additional support.
	As the Government move to the introduction of personal accounts, the reliance on means-tested benefits will pose new problems for a new generation of savers looking towards their retirement. The Government must face up to the need to grasp the means-testing nettle so that people feel confident about saving for the future. The message must be that taking personal responsibility along with a personal account is the right thing for pensioners, and we will not leave them worse off. The Opposition motion is right to call on the Government to deliver on one promise from 1997, but they must also deliver on another: the end of means-testing for the elderly.

Geraldine Smith: I had not intended to speak today. I intended just to come into the Chamber to hear what the Conservatives were going to say about pensioner poverty. I thought that they would be embarrassed and shamefaced when we looked back at the appalling record of the previous Conservative Government on pensioners and pensioner poverty. In contrast, the present Government's record is very good. How well we look after the most vulnerable members of society is the mark of a civilised society. This Government have a good record of looking after those vulnerable members, including the poorest pensioners.
	The pension credit has been very successful, and it has helped several thousand pensioners in my constituency. It can make a difference of up to £30 or £40 a week, which is a substantial amount for someone on a low income. I accept some of the comments about the forms being complex and the take-up rate. We need to improve that; much more needs to be done. I listened to people from the Pension Service go through telephone calls with pensioners, and I have to say that what they did was very good. They took a lot of time, and some of those people are dedicated; they take pride and pleasure in helping pensioners claim the money to which they are rightly entitled.
	We come to the winter fuel allowance—another success for this Government. It is interesting that it appears that the Conservatives intend to scrap it.

Andrew Selous: indicated dissent.

Geraldine Smith: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Will he say that the Conservatives will retain the winter fuel allowance and that it will be part of their manifesto?

Andrew Selous: I can reassure the hon. Lady that we have no plans to scrap the winter fuel allowance.

Geraldine Smith: I am very pleased to hear that. Perhaps we can go through a few of the other measures. Will the Conservatives keep free transport for the elderly? My constituency is in a scenic area—we have Morcambe bay and the Lake district quite close at hand. It is great that pensioners can have days out—they have so much more freedom to get out of the house now.

David Winnick: To revert to the winter fuel allowance, when the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), opening for the Opposition, was asked by me whether a Tory Government would keep the winter fuel allowance, he said that there were no commitments to be made. What has happened between his reply two hours ago and the intervention that we have just heard from the other Tory Front-Bench spokesman?

Geraldine Smith: I think it is a case of flip-flopping around. It will be interesting when the Conservatives have to start stating what their policies actually are. That is when we may see a change in fortunes and in the opinion polls. It is easy to be critical of what goes wrong with a Government, but at some point they will have to say what they will do to put it right. The British people are not stupid, and nor are pensioners—they will remember the Conservatives' record.
	As well as free transport for pensioners, this Government have introduced free television licences for the over-75s—another very welcome measure. We have already heard about the Warm Front scheme, under which people can claim up to £4,000. That helps to ensure that pensioners' homes have proper central heating and people can keep warm.
	We have touched only briefly today on the national health service, which is used mainly by pensioners. I have seen tremendous strides forward in the NHS. I remember, when the Conservative Government were in power, an old man—a Labour party member—who had to wait several years for a cataract operation. That man was practically blind; his poverty of life was appalling. Now, such operations take place within a matter of months or weeks. There has been a huge improvement. I have seen knee replacement operations going ahead in our local hospital, again within a matter of weeks. Before, people were not having those operations—they were dying before they could have them. In winter, old people lay on trolleys—

Charles Walker: MRSA. C. difficile. People lying in their own vomit.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the rules of debate.

Geraldine Smith: People were dying on hospital trolleys. As I have said, the British people are not stupid. When they come to choose a Government, they will remember those things.
	Another welcome measure introduced by this Government is the financial assistance scheme to support people who were cruelly robbed of their pension—quite right, too. Now, we have said that we will restore the link with earnings. The Conservatives conveniently forget that it was they who abolished it. It is incredible. There is an old northern saying, "You would stand clogging." They have absolutely no shame.

John Barrett: I take the hon. Lady's point about the importance of the link. Why does she think it has not been reintroduced in the 11 years of the Labour Government?

Geraldine Smith: The Government have said that they will restore that link and we await an announcement. The Conservatives have not given a clear commitment on when they would restore the link with earnings. Perhaps we might have an announcement on that. Are they going to restore the link with earnings? Will that be part of their manifesto and their pledges to the British people?  [ Interruption. ] Was that a no? No answer. Okay.
	There are things that the Government need to do something about. Council tax has been mentioned a few times today. The Government seriously need to address that. I would go so far as to say that it should be scrapped. A new, fairer tax should be implemented because the council tax is unfair.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) talked about drop-in centres for the elderly. It is important that elderly people are not left lonely in their own homes and can get out and socialise. In the Rainbow centre in my constituency, people do a fantastic job. They are often elderly people, who look after those who are more vulnerable, and ensure that there are meals on wheels services and that people can come to the centre and participate in a variety of activities. Much good is therefore happening in the community.
	Of course, much more needs to be done to help pensioners—we should never get complacent. Those people remember the war, took part in it and fought for their country. They should be able to live out their lives with dignity and in comfort. We owe them a debt and we must ensure that we keep moving in the right direction and do more and more for the older people of this country.

John Penrose: I want to pick up on some of the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) made in his opening speech. It is worth beginning by agreeing that the Government have done an impressive job of working on long-term pensioner poverty. They have taken some important steps, supported on a cross-party basis and by many people outside this place, to try to alleviate the systematic problems in the existing pensions system. We should acknowledge and celebrate that as an important piece of institutional workmanship, which, I hope, will stand the test of time and provide a solid foundation for reducing pensioner poverty in the long term. It is important to have cross-party consensus on that, and it is worth therefore celebrating the fact that there are reforms to the state pension in the works, including a vital measure on personal accounts, which is currently being considered in Parliament.
	Restoring the earnings link from 2012 or 2015 is tremendously welcome, although we can argue about the timing. Reforms to the arrangements for carers' and women's pensions have also been mentioned. All those matters are vital and will make a material difference. However, the current problem is to do not with those long-term arrangements, which are impressive, but with a point that the committee of the Weston-super-Mare Senior Citizens Forum made to me. I encourage the Under-Secretary to visit it if he needs a refresher course because it is a feisty and well educated group, whose members will be delighted to discuss some of the problems with him at length.
	Those pensioners say that it is all very well trying to put things in place for tomorrow's pensioners, but ask what the Government are doing—and why they are not doing more—for today's pensioners. They feel that the progress on long-term pensioner poverty alleviation is not matched to anything like the same extent by that on current pensioner poverty. That is a crucial point.
	The earnings link will not be restored until 2012 at the earliest. As my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) said, because average earnings will continue rising higher than the state pension in the next few years, the state pension will continue to decline as a percentage of average earnings relative to people in work. That makes it more affordable for the Government, if they delay reintroducing the link until 2012 or 2015, but it also means continual increases in the number of pensioners on means-tested benefits between now and the date when the link is reintroduced. Clearly, we will start from an even worse position than we are in today.
	The problems of fuel poverty have already been mentioned. The Government's moves, while welcome, will not be enough to make a significant difference to sufficient pensioners, especially as the cost of fuel skyrockets. Therefore, there is a wider issue of inflation for pensioners increasing much faster than the average figure for the economy as a whole.
	That is partly to do with council tax, but it is also worth while pointing out that, as several hon. Members have mentioned, the take-up of means-tested benefits is appallingly low. That is to do with the design of those benefits, as much as the complexity of the forms. I have already mentioned the pension credit form, at 17 pages, but it is worth while mentioning the housing benefit and council tax benefit form, too. That form is 29 pages long and the explanatory notes are six pages long. Although it is true that plenty of people are available to help pensioners to fill in those forms, that does not help with the fact that pensioners find them intrusive and demeaning. It must surely be better to reduce the low take-up rates by redesigning those benefits in a way that does not mean just simplifying the forms, but redesigning the complexity out of the system. That is the only way in which the Government will make progress on improving take-up rates.
	The Government have, I fear, faced a significant problem in improving take-up rates and have already admitted defeat. They have been trying to persuade pensioners to parade their poverty by filling in all the forms, but have failed to improve take-up rates dramatically, as a result of those difficulties. A much more fundamental change needs to be introduced.
	Why has the Government's progress on current pensioner poverty not been as impressive as the longer-term arrangements that they have put in place? My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree put his finger on it when he said, "It's all to do with money." The Government's finances are tighter than they have ever been and their three fiscal tests are under severe pressure. In fact, if we include the figures for Northern Rock, which the Government tend to forget, they have broken one of their fiscal rules. The Government faced problems over the 10p tax fiasco, which meant a one-off fix for this year, which will create additional fiscal pressures next year. As my hon. Friend said, the result is a series of short-term measures that do not allow pensioners to plan for the future or to be certain about their financial arrangements.
	As the shadow Chancellor has said, the fundamental problem is that, fiscally, the Government failed to mend the roof when the sun was shining. The Under-Secretary will not be able to say this in public, but I am sure that he knows that there should be an opportunity to improve current pensioner poverty; indeed, there would be such an opportunity if there were more money in the Government's coffers, but there is not. Improving pensioner poverty would surely be at the top of this or any Conservative Government's priority list, but that opportunity will be lost, because of the financial constraints that the Government are currently under. I know that the Under-Secretary knows that that is a tremendous missed opportunity, which I am sure he would prefer not to have to face.
	There are, however, two things, which I hope the Under-Secretary will point to, that will help without costing too much money. One of them, which should be fiscally neutral, is to improve the take-up of the key pension benefits that I have mentioned. I am assuming—I hope that he will reassure the House about this in his winding-up speech—that there is a contingency in the Government's budgets for an improvement in those key take-up ratios. On the assumption that there is, and that the Government therefore have the money ready, redesigning those benefits and forms, and improving the take-up rate will make a tremendous difference, particularly to those pensioners in the severest poverty, 60 per cent. of whom are not claiming the benefits to which they are entitled, according to the Government's figures. If the Government have the money in their budget, that fix, although not simple, would be tremendously effective and would not put the Government's finances under additional pressure.
	The second thing that the Government could do—it would not cost a penny—is to ensure that the scandal of age-related discrimination is finished once and for all. I was particularly pleased to hear questions about that earlier today, in Prime Minister's questions. Perhaps I was being a little over-optimistic, but I hope that I heard from both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Pensions Reform, in his opening remarks in this debate, that there is a commitment to include measures to abolish age-related discrimination in the upcoming legislation that the Government are preparing. I hope that the Under-Secretary will reassure us on that point.
	Those two measures alone would not put the Government's finances under any greater pressure, but would make a material difference, promptly and practically, to the problem of pensioner poverty today, not just in the long term.

Charles Walker: Thank you for calling me to speak towards the tail end of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I listened closely to the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who made a number of telling points. The first was that the old will always be with us. Of course they will. It is incumbent on politicians—yes, we are politicians with differing views—to ensure that, more often than not, we get it right when looking after those who in the main have given a huge amount to society throughout their working lives.
	We can have political differences over how that is done, but there is not a single politician in the House—on the Government, Conservative or Liberal Democrat Benches—whether in government or in opposition, who does not have at the core of their beliefs a desire to improve the outlook for pensioners. Therefore, I am not going to be partisan in this brief contribution.
	Without doubt, pensioners face serious problems right now. In the main, that has to do with problems afflicting the global economy. Fuel prices are going up. A large amount of pensioners' income is spent on fuel, so that increase is hitting them in the pocket right now. Fuel prices are going up, so the cost of food production is going up. That means that food prices are going up, which is also hitting pensioners in the pocket right now. This is not something that will happen in a year's time; it is ongoing and it is causing financial hardship. We in the House need to come up with a range of ideas to alleviate the immediate pressure on pensioners.
	There is also the issue with the council tax. One could be a little more political about how the council tax has risen so far in excess of inflation, but I do not want to be political. We need to consider how the council tax impacts on pensioners.
	The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton also referred to the fact that poverty goes beyond income. It is about a range of other, connected issues. As politicians, we need to examine them in the round.
	Many elderly people are carers. In my constituency and in many others, elderly people are looking after loved ones who suffer from Alzheimer's. That puts a huge strain on them emotionally and physically. We need to ensure that that strain is recognised and, wherever possible, alleviated.
	One problem at local authority level is the ring-fencing of funds. Funds delivered to local authorities have to be spent in specific project areas. I would like far more local democracy to be introduced to local government, so that local government would live or die according to how it spent its money. For example, if the elderly population in Hertfordshire, the county in which I have a seat, were growing and more money needed to be spent on the elderly, and local politicians took the view that that is what needed to happen, the money could be found within existing budgets—I am not asking for more—and the argument could be made to redirect it towards alleviating the issues created around caring for people with Alzheimer's.
	There also needs to be far better co-operation between the NHS and local authorities on providing integrated support services. The NHS is often quick to push people off its books and out of its beds, back on to the local authority. Again, costing pressures are created, which need to be addressed urgently.
	More generally, pensioner poverty can be linked to access to health care. Pensioners tend to have less access to cars. When a partner, husband or wife is taken into hospital, the distances that pensioners have to travel to see that person might be extremely large and expensive to cover, and pensioners may have to rely on either taxis, which, as we know, can cost a lot of money, or public transport, which may run infrequently. If they are lucky enough to have a car, often when they get to the hospital, they have to pay parking charges.
	We need to consider how we deliver health care to our elderly, but also how the people who care for them when they are in hospital—for example, their children, husbands or partners—can visit them in a cost-effective and reasonable way.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has omitted to mention one way of conveying elderly people to hospital to visit wives and other loved ones: community transport. In my area, where the general hospitals are in remote parts of Derby, Leicester and Burton, there are plenty of buses run by community transport schemes, at least part of whose purpose is to take elderly people to hospital for appointments or to visit friends or family. Perhaps Governments could do more to underpin such provision.

Charles Walker: That is an important point. I think that it is incumbent on primary care trusts and regional health authorities to consider how hospitals as well as local government can play their part in the funding of such schemes. Our local authority, Broxbourne, provides a subsidised bus service to help people to travel to hospitals to visit friends and relatives. I should like such services to be provided in a more joined-up way, rather than just being provided by local authorities with a bit of spare cash. If the Government could give a lead, that would be a step in the right direction.
	We have heard a great deal about access to benefits. I know that the Government are keen to ensure that pensioners receive the benefits to which they are entitled, and the Conservatives are as well, but the truth is that that is not happening. I do not think any of us can afford to rest on our laurels until the rate of benefit take-up by pensioners is nearly 100 per cent. Those benefits can make a real difference.
	If we are to deal with many of the cost issues faced by pensioners, we must either increase their incomes or reduce their costs. There are a number of ways in which we could do either. First, we should consider the cost of energy production, in which the Government have a part to play. Oil still forms a fundamental part of the energy burned by our power stations. We must find ways of reducing the cost of energy, which would have an immediate impact on pensioners, and we must encourage energy providers to subsidise the services that they deliver to pensioners. Such subsidies need not continue indefinitely, but at a time when energy prices are high and fuel bills are rising by 20 or 30 per cent. a year, the situation requires urgent attention.
	Many pensioners who could be described as middle-income earners have scrimped and saved throughout their lives to build a future for themselves. Their earnings may have been similar to those of people living opposite, but instead of buying new cars and taking holidays, they bought their homes and made provision for their old age. Too often when such people go into residential care, there is a price to pay in the form of confiscation of their assets. I do not have an immediate answer to the problem, but we need to address that element of unfairness in the system.
	Pensioners are slow to anger. They are wise people who have lived long lives and have seen it all before, and they like to take a long-term view of big issues. They do not jump up and down like younger people such as me, getting frightfully agitated. However, pensioners are now becoming worried and angry. On 22 October there is to be a lobby of the House by a pensioners' pressure group, and between now and then we need to make some progress in alleviating the immediate problem faced by pensioners: the increasing cost of day-to-day living. I know that the Government have taken the message on board, I know that we have taken it on board, and I hope that we can work collectively to ensure that that happens.

Michael Penning: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker). We have come to expect a passionate speech from him, and we heard another one this evening.
	I am pleased to see that the Minister has returned to the Chamber, because I want to address some of the points that he made in his speech. I shall also try to persuade him to deal with the question that I asked him in an intervention earlier. If he does not manage to do so on this occasion, perhaps he will write to me.
	In his opening remarks, the Minister said what a wonderful situation the country is in at the moment. He said that there were no marches or demonstrations and that everything out there is rosy for our pensioners and other constituents. I am not certain what world he lives in, but that certainly is not the case in my constituency, and I draw his attention to some recent demonstrations. Pensioners have joined me to demonstrate against the school closures in my constituency that the Government are, sadly, pushing through. The Government will not listen to the local pressure groups that have asked them not to close those schools now, while we are short of numbers, because they are imposing 18,000 homes on us, whether we want them or not, and children will be coming through.
	The Minister could have joined me on the picket line at my local fire station, which has recently been closed because of financial problems. It is not the first time that I have been on a picket line at a fire station, as I used to be a member of the Fire Brigades Union.

David Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether we could consider what is being said, because fire station closures and school closures do not seem immediately to be linked to the topic of debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that is for me to decide. I was allowing the hon. Gentleman some leeway in the hope that he would soon address his remarks to the motion on the Order Paper.

Michael Penning: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was addressing the comments that the Minister made in his opening remarks. If the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) had been in the Chamber at that time, he would have known that and would not be wasting the Chamber's time now.
	If the Minister thinks that no demonstrations are taking place and that pensioners are not concerned, he should join the hundreds of thousands of people around the country who are demonstrating against hospital closures, not least the 30-odd thousand who have signed a petition in my constituency. He mentioned that there is no bed blocking, but the reason why there is not much bed blocking in my constituency is that the wards are closing. Many care homes are also closing, and that is causing even more problems for hospitals in other areas that are trying to bring patients back to my constituency, because there is nowhere for them to go.
	The Minister said that things are better today than they were 11 years ago. At that time, I was in a union that is no longer affiliated to the Labour party, and we made contributions to the Labour party—I must admit that I had my donations removed—in the hope that it would address the issues that it had talked about so much when it was in opposition for so long, but that has not happened. The figures that we have heard today are frightening—not least those given by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott)—and show the many problems of so many pensioners who are still in poverty.
	Let me draw the Minister's attention to one of the biggest demonstrations by pensioners in this country. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central has joined me on many demonstrations, at which, to draw attention to the plight of the 140,000 pensioners whose pensions were stolen from them, many middle-aged men who had never demonstrated in their life took off most of their clothes just to get some publicity and to get the Government to listen to their plight.
	The Minister proudly said that he has addressed that issue and that the Government have come forward with a package for those pensioners, who will get 90 per cent. of what they would have got, but I find that slightly difficult. I know the Minister well and I know that he has tried hard, but that has taken five years of promises, meetings, more meetings and demonstrations by people who had done the honourable thing. I have made this speech many times before in the House, and I know that the Minister agrees that they are honourable people who did the right thing. They worked hard and did not spend their money on holidays in lavish places, but put it into a pension scheme that Governments had said was safe.
	This Government were taken to the parliamentary ombudsman on this matter, who found that they were in breach and that there had been maladministration. That is a fact that even the Minister cannot deny. He might disagree with the conclusions that were reached, but that is what the independent ombudsman found. The Government challenged the finding and said that they would not pay the compensation that the pensioners deserved and went to court, where they lost again. They went to the European Court, but they lost again, although they kept saying that they would not. They challenged the ruling in the courts.
	For the Minister to stand here and say what a wonderful job the Government have done in compensating those pensioners five years later sticks in my throat slightly, because I know that although he has done his bit, his predecessors have been misleading, frankly, in many ways, regarding the promises that were made. I do not know why the Government did not listen to the parliamentary ombudsman at the time. That is exactly what previous Governments had done; they had adhered to the parliamentary ombudsman's report, come up with a compensation package and paid the compensation.
	One of the great problems—I know that the Minister knows this to be a fact—is that, because this has taken five years, a lot of these pensioners will now get a lump sum, which will put them into a completely different tax bracket from the one that would have applied if they had been given their pension, to which they had a right, five years ago. It cannot be right for the Government to bring forward a compensation package that will force pensioners to pay more tax than they would have done if they had had their pension by right. Earlier on, the Minister said that this was a matter for the pensioners to take up with the taxman, but it is not; it is a matter for the Government to sort out. It is not the pensioners' fault that they did not get their pensions. It was owing to this Government's maladministration—that is the parliamentary ombudsman's word, not mine—that they failed to get their pensions.
	Two groups of people are really suffering, at both ends of the spectrum, in relation to income tax. There are those who will receive a lump sum and will have to pay 40 per cent. of it, which they would not have had to pay if they had had their compensation earlier. Another group—a smaller group, I admit—comprises those who are the most needy and who would have paid only 10p in the pound before the Government abolished the 10p tax rate. Surely it cannot be right for any Government—let alone this Government, who have promised to compensate the people who have lost out—to do that. If the 10p rate had still been in place, and if those people had been given the pension that they deserved, they would not have to pay the 20p in the pound that they will now be asked to pay. I have not seen any compensation package that will protect those people.

Anne Main: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He and I share the same group of pensioners who have been affected by the Dexion pension collapse. He has put forward a cogent argument in relation to the package that has now been put in place, but that package will not compensate for the stress and worry that people went through, and the life-altering changes that they had to make during that time, when they did not know how much money they would be able to spend or what debts they might incur. On top of all that life-altering stress and change, it seems doubly unfair to tax them at a higher rate. The Government really should show a bit more compassion over this.

Michael Penning: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and pay tribute to the work that she has done on behalf of her constituents on this issue.
	As the Minister knows, some of those pensioners did not live to see the end of the process, and there are widows out there who are suffering as well. They will now fall into the higher tax bracket. Some of them have had to go to work because they had no income from the pension that they had paid into. They have already paid tax on the income that they earned, and now they will be asked to pay tax on top of that, which will take them into the 40 per cent. tax bracket.
	However, the particular people for whom everyone in the House should feel sorry, and for whom the Government must do something, are those who would have paid only 10p in the pound before, and who are now going to have to pay 20p. They are the most vulnerable pensioners—in my constituency, they worked for Dexion—who earned the lowest amount, but they are now going to be hammered. That is not compensation; that is vindictiveness.

Andrew Selous: We have had an important debate tonight, which was comprehensively and persuasively introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). The debate on pensioner poverty was initiated by the Conservative party because it is such an important issue. Let me begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott) to her new responsibilities. Among other things, she said that only 57 per cent. of people were taking up council tax benefit, and that the take-up rates for council tax benefit and housing benefit were actually lower than under the previous Conservative Government. She was wrong, however, to say that my party would not restore the earnings link; we will be doing that.
	The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) paid kind compliments to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne—I gather that they shared an English teacher at some time in the past. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the issue of bed blocking had been solved, but listening to the experiences of hon. Members on both sides of the House, it seems that that is not the case.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) spoke movingly about the position of pensioners in his semi-rural constituency, as he described it. He made the very valid point that inflation for the elderly is higher than it is for the rest of the population and reminded the House of the Government's failure to repeat the £200 council tax reduction in 2006. As he told us, Help the Aged described that as a cynical election bribe.
	The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) talked about pensioners dying under the previous Conservative Government, but I did not detect any reference to or sorrow about the fact that there were 22,300 unnecessary winter deaths of older people last year. That needs to go on the record.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) made his customarily reasonable and measured speech, for which he is well respected on all sides of the House. He talked of the need for proper and fundamental reform of our pensions system. I was delighted to hear what he said about the need to get rid of age discrimination. Future generations will look back with incredulity at the way in which we treat people above pensionable age who want to work. The sooner we get rid of that form of discrimination, the better.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), a diligent attendee in the Chamber, called rightly for more freedom for local authorities to spend their money as they see fit in relation to their older residents. He also referred to the confiscation of assets of people going in for long-term care. We had an excellent policy on that at the last general election, which no doubt persuaded many pensioners in his constituency to vote for my hon. Friend.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) mentioned, quite rightly, his Dexion pensioners. I pay tribute to the tenacity that my hon. Friend has shown over years on behalf of those pensioners, some of whom are in my constituency. He reminded the Minister of the protest marches going on up and down the country at the moment against various aspects of Government policy. Marches are taking place in Hemel Hempstead and elsewhere. The Minister said he was not aware of such marches but he has been made aware of them now.
	I was struck by the interventions by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who pointed out that rural pensioners—those living in market towns and villages up and down the country—are paying higher council tax and often receiving worse services. He also made the important point—one that I made in a previous intervention on the Prime Minister—that those council taxes are higher because local authorities are having to put more money into the pension schemes for their staff because of the Government's £5 billion a year tax raid on occupational pension funds. We do not hear enough about that.
	I was pleased to hear mention of heating oil from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). I heard a recent story about shepherds in Scotland whose bill for filling their oil tank is more than their monthly wage; they have to have their oil paid for by their employers, who they then pay back on a monthly basis.
	The Minister's approach seemed to be to go back and knock what happened under the last Conservative Government—a sign of a Government who are backward-looking rather than focused on preventing future pensioner poverty. Instead of attacking what took place 11 years ago, they should be more focused on ensuring that the nearly £5 billion of unclaimed benefits today actually gets to the pensioners who desperately need those benefits, 500,000 of whom would be lifted out of poverty if those benefits were paid out, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
	The Conservative party has supported the Turner pension reform proposals as a sound basis for a future pensions settlement and we are pleased that at last the Government are taking seriously the concerns we have raised about those people who would be better advised not to enrol in the new personal accounts scheme because of their loss of means-tested benefits. But these vital pension reforms to state pensions and personal accounts do not come in until 2010 and 2012 respectively. That is 13 to 15 years after the Government entered office, pledging that all pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation. That means that a large proportion of the working-age population will be poorer than they need to be in retirement, as the Government will have taken 15 years to put a decent pension settlement in place when they would have had the support of the Conservative party to do that on day one. Rather than hearing self-satisfied complacency from the Government about what they have done, it would be good to have a general recognition across the House of the scale of the problem.
	Figures produced by EUROSTAT on 28 March show that out of 29 European countries, the United Kingdom is the fourth worst in which to be a pensioner. Only Cyprus, Spain and Latvia have a greater proportion of their pensioners living in poverty, using 60 per cent. of median equivalised income after social transfers—

Mike O'Brien: indicated dissent.

Andrew Selous: The Minister shakes his head, but he should look at the note on the EUROSTAT figures. This Government have a tendency not to like any figures that they have not produced; they do not like the UN figures, the OECD figures or the EUROSTAT figures.

Rob Marris: rose—

Andrew Selous: I do not have long left, and I am going to respond to the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.
	The figures also show that the proportion of pensioners living in poverty in the UK increased between 1997 and 2006, while the proportion of over-65s living in poverty in Greece, Portugal, France, Austria and Luxembourg fell. So, I hope that we will hear some sober reflection from the Minister on what more can be done, within the constraints of pretty battered public finances, to help today's pensioners, who are struggling with massively high gas, electricity and oil bills, as well as much higher food prices, increased council tax and the loss of the 10p tax band.
	One of my pensioner constituents wrote to me last month, and the Ministers might like to listen to what he said:
	"As a life long supporter of the Labour party I must say that I am perplexed that a Labour Government should penalise pensioners with a modest income. Revenue & Customs have been of little help in answering my questions...The Government's proposal to compensate those who have lost out is, to my mind, too late as it does not reflect a change in policy but is simply a political response to last week's defeat at the polls. I wish you well in your legitimate attack on the Government and, like many other citizens, await the next General Election when we can vent our displeasure."
	It is good for Ministers to hear what ordinary pensioners who used to support the Labour party are saying.
	I raised with the previous Prime Minister the fact that some of my constituents, and others up and down the country, were paying one third or more of their entire income in council tax. Many pensioners across the country run down their savings every year in order to stay in the home they love and to pay their council tax, which invariably rises at a far higher rate than their pension. What have the Government done with the Lyons review on the future of council tax? Again, they have dithered and kicked it into the long grass. That simply will not do; our elderly constituents deserve better, as the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale rightly mentioned. That applies not least to English pensioners, who are suffering tax and council tax increases, while the Scots have their council tax frozen this year. What happened to fairness across the United Kingdom?
	We have heard criticisms of a lack of Conservative policy, but my hon. Friends were elected to this House in 2005 on a manifesto commitment to halve the council tax of everyone over the age of 65, up to a maximum of £500 a year, for the life of this Parliament. That compares with the Government's lower, £200 for one year only, offer. We were also elected on a pledge to restore the earnings link, when the Labour party was telling the country that that could not be done. So we are not going to take any lectures tonight on Conservative party failings, not least because the Government have nicked at least eight Conservative policies. I know that Labour Members are keen to know what the Conservative policy will be in more areas, but as they have already stolen so many of our policies, we will keep a few in the locker until just before the general election, so that the Government do not take those as well.
	The raid on private pensions has taken place, whereby £100 billion has been taken out, and the savings ratio is only a third of what it was in the second quarter of 1997. In many societies, respect for the elderly is a given, but in our country the cult of youth often seems to dominate. Taking the right decisions now to look after current and future pensioners—the men and women who have given a lifetime of service to our country—is one of the most important responsibilities that we face in this House.

James Plaskitt: We have had an interesting debate this afternoon with contributions from the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott)—I welcome her to her new post—my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) and from the hon. Members for Braintree (Mr. Newmark), for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) and for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). The debate has been based on the Conservative motion and I shall conclude it by focusing on that, and as I do so, I shall respond to specific points made by hon. Members.
	The motion begins with a comment about 2 million pensioners still living in poverty. As we have established this afternoon, we take no lessons on poverty from the Tory party. During the 1980s, pensioner poverty fell only when there was a recession. That was the Tory method of cutting pensioner poverty—reduce median income, watch the wages of working-age people drop and unemployment rise and, hey presto, pensioner poverty falls. In fact, when this Government came to power in 1997, 3.2 million pensioners were in absolute poverty.
	Unlike the Tories, we believe in giving the poorest in our society meaningful help, while keeping the economy strong. Because of the effective measures that we have taken and substantial extra investment, pensioner poverty has fallen while the economy has grown. And it has fallen not by a bit, but by more than 2 million in absolute terms. Support such as pension credit, winter fuel payments and help with council tax mean that today pensioner households are on average £29 a week better off than under the 1997 system and the poorest third are £40 a week better off. That means that today, pensioners are less likely to be in poverty than any group in society. That could never have been said under the previous Conservative Government.
	The second claim in the motion is that
	"the poorest pensioners are seeing their incomes decline in real terms".
	That claim is simply wrong. The Conservatives' source seems to be a misreading of a parliamentary answer given by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Pensions Reform in July 2007. The figures in the answer were in real terms and included the effect of inflation. To get the figure used in the motion, the Conservatives have double-counted for inflation. Perhaps that is because they used to run inflation at double the level that it is under this Government.
	Opposition Members appear to find it difficult to get even a basic understanding of the figures. Such figures are only accurate as trends and the trend is very firmly up for all groups of pensioners over the past decade. The trends show that the incomes of the poorest pensioner households have risen by around 30 per cent. since 1997. Average pensioner incomes have risen by 29 per cent. since 1997 in real terms, compared to earnings growth of 16 per cent.
	The motion then makes a claim based on the EUROSTAT statistics about pensioners in Latvia, Cyprus and Spain, to which the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire returned in his speech. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central also focused on them. The claim rests on a complete misreading of the data. The EUROSTAT survey measures the median income of each country and that of pensioners. The UK is relatively well-off so our poverty line is higher, and so our "poorest pensioners" are better off than the "poorest pensioners" in other countries. The motion's claim is therefore spurious.
	The UK has the fifth highest median pensioner income in the EU—higher than in France, Denmark and Sweden. So a "poor" pensioner in the UK has an income a 10th higher than that of a poor pensioner in Germany and a fifth higher than one in France. A poor pensioner in the UK has an income nearly twice that of a poor Spanish pensioner, three times that of a poor Latvian pensioner and more than 10 times that of a Cypriot pensioner. Furthermore, the EUROSTAT figures also ignore housing costs, personal pensions, and free health care—

Andrew Selous: Will the Minister give way?

James Plaskitt: No, I do not have time.
	So if hon. Members want to use EUROSTAT, the most reliable data are those that show that a decade ago UK pensioners had a median income which was one seventh below that of the EU15. Today, it is nearly one 10th above that median. That is the reality of the situation.
	The charge of rising costs adding further to poverty was stressed by the hon. Members for Braintree, for Weston-super-Mare and for Broxbourne. In the past 10 years, pensioner incomes have increased by more than inflation and by more than the average growth in earnings. That puts pensioners in a better position when dealing with the recent increases in the cost of living.
	Where we can take action to help the poorest with the rising cost of living, we are. On fuel bills, we announced last week that we are taking serious steps to enable energy companies to ensure that the most vulnerable pensioners have cheaper bills. For this winter, we have offered the energy companies the facility to send a mailshot or voucher to any of our clients on pension credit. That is coupled with the increase in the winter fuel payment announced in the Budget and the commitment of the energy suppliers to provide an extra £225 million in support over the next three years. That will provide significant extra support to the most vulnerable, enabling them to pay their fuel bills.
	Of course, pensioners are concerned about council tax increases. That is why council tax benefit take-up is important. We are encouraged by the fact that since we have increased activity on take-up it has started to rise, going up by 2 per cent. in 2005-06. We need to go further and so we are introducing automaticity into the claiming of pensioner benefits. We estimate that that will lift 50,000 more pensioners out of poverty by 2010.
	One of the most incredible aspects of the motion is what we have heard from the Conservatives about restoring the link between average earnings and the basic state pension. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton reminded us, the Tories broke that link and when they did so they said that it was the right thing to do. Clearly, they have no credibility whatsoever on the issue. We are committed to restoring that link, and of that there is no doubt, because we have enshrined it in law. Our aim is to re-link in 2012, subject to affordability and the fiscal position, so the latest that it could happen would be the end of the next Parliament. Restoring the link is part of a package of reforms. Unlike the Tories, we are not breaking the link or talking about restoring it for one Parliament only. We are making a commitment to do it for real and in a lasting and sustainable way. It will ensure that the poorest in our society benefit from significant increases in their income.
	We then come to the claim about abandoning the target for pension credit take-up. That is old news, as we have established before. Last year, we had a stretching target to get 235,000 new claimants on to pension credit. All the indications are that we have exceeded that target, so for this year we have set an even more stretching target of 250,000. That shows our commitment to the poorest in society and to ensuring that we continue to make every effort to lift them out of poverty.
	The motion moves on to make claims about the decline in private pension savings. That decline has been going on in the UK since the 1960s. In 1967, there were 8.1 million on such schemes. By the 1970s, there were 6 million, by the late 1980s there were 5.8 million and today there are 4.5 million. The reforms that we have introduced will ensure the best offer in the future for savings for pensioners.
	The motion has been on the starting grid on a couple of occasions, only to be withdrawn for something else to be debated. The motion rather resembles one of the Tory party's old bangers; I suspect they got it ready to go a couple of times, took a look at it and thought, "Well, perhaps not—it doesn't really look very roadworthy." That is what we have found out today. Even with the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson)—an advanced motorist—at the wheel, it could not be kept on the road. Bit by bit, it has fallen apart—

Patrick McLoughlin: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	 Question, That the Question be now put,  put and agreed to.
	 Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:——
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 213, Noes 284.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question, That the proposed words be there added,  put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
	 The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 209.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker  forthwith  declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the policies of this Government to tackle pensioner poverty, which have lifted around two million pensioners out of absolute poverty and over one million out of relative poverty, and have led to spending of around £12 billion extra on pensioners compared with 1997; recognises that pension credit allows pensioners to live with dignity and rewards those who have saved for their own retirement; acknowledges the introduction of and increases to the winter fuel payment and further measures to ensure pensioners can keep warm; notes the provision of free off-peak bus travel granting freedom to pensioners and ensuring that they are not isolated in their own community; welcomes the long-term framework for pensions through the Pensions Act 2007, including relinking the basic state pension to average earnings and ensuring equality for women and carers with men by 2025; and further welcomes the private pension reforms in the Pensions Bill which will enable individuals to take personal responsibility for their own retirement.

Delegated legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Constitutional Law

That the draft Welsh Ministers (Transfer of Functions) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 22nd April, be approved.— [Mr. Watts.]
	 Question agreed to.

Adjournment (summer)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.25, ( Periodic adjournments ),
	That this House, at its rising on Tuesday 22nd July 2008, do adjourn till Monday 6th October 2008.— [Mr. Watts.]
	 Question agreed to.

Notices of questions etc during September 2008

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.22B(2), (Notices of Questions etc. during September),
	That the days appointed for the tabling and answering of written questions and for written ministerial statements under Standing Order No. 22B (Notices of questions etc. during September) shall be as follows:
	 Tabling days
	Wednesday 3rd, Monday 8th and Wednesday 10th September 2008
	 Answering days
	Wednesday 10th, Monday 15th and Wednesday 17th September 2008.— [Mr . Watts.]
	 Question agreed to.

DRAFT CONSTITUTIONAL RENEWAL BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Resolved,
	That this House concurs with the Lords Message of 2nd June that, notwithstanding the Resolution of this House of 30th April, it be an instruction to the Joint Committee on the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill that it should report on the draft Bill by 22nd July.— [Mr. Watts.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Thursday 12th June, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), opposed private business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means may be entered upon at any hour and may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business.— [Mr. Watts.]

PETITIONS

Window Blind Safety

Gordon Banks: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker for giving me the opportunity to present this petition of 3,500 signatures on behalf of my constituents in Ochil and South Perthshire calling for a redesign of the looped cord operation design for window blinds.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of readers of the Alloa and Hillfoots Advertiser and others of like disposition,
	Declares that looped operating cords on window blinds are dangerous, particularly to young children, as the tragic death of Menstrie toddler Muireann McLaughlin in February 2008 and similar tragic deaths of children in the UK demonstrates. The Government should take all necessary actions to prevent further unnecessary deaths in the future.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring forward legislation banning looped operating cords on window blinds and curtains.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.,
	[P000192]

Road Safety (A5 Chequers Hill)

Michael Penning: I rise to deliver a public petition on behalf of the residents of Flamstead in my constituency. It contains more than 500 signatures, which represents the vast majority of the residents of Flamstead, who are affected by the dangerous intersection with the A5 at Chequers Hill.
	The petition is long, so I will not read it in full, but it declares that the situation is causing distress and fear to local residents because of the high number of reported and unreported accidents that occur daily. Traffic congestion of between 17 and 33 vehicles is backed up between Chequers Hill and the A5, especially when residents are trying to turn right on to the A5.
	It further declares that an agreement that this junction is a special case and that traffic lights be installed is requested by my constituents, who ask that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Transport to find ways and means of providing traffic-light controlled systems at this dangerous junction, as recommended in the A5 Chequers Hill review study, carried out on behalf of the Highways Agency, works order no. 96525, in July 2007.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [ The Petition of those concerned about the intersection of the A5/Chequers hill, Flamstead,
	 Declares that they live in the vicinity of a dangerous intersection (A5/Chequers Hill, Flamstead), which they are forced to use in order to gain access to Harpenden, St . Albans, Hemel Hempstead, Luton and Dunstable for reasons of employment, travel, medical care and shopping.  While they understand that a traffic light scheme may not rate highly in the  v alue for  m oney criteria normally employed when assessing road improvement schemes, but submit that, in this case, the normal criteria should be tempered by the knowledge that it involves the fifth most important trunk road in the country which, at this point, is accommodating traffic that has just left the M1 motorway and, despite a 50 mph speed limit, is travelling at killing speed. Further confusion is caused by vehicles whose direction indicators have not been cancelled after turning left at this point.  This has encouraged frustrated motorists to pull out onto the A5 in front of them.
	 Further declares that the situation is causing distress and fear to local residents by reason o f the high number of unreported "damage only" accidents that occur and the high number of  "near misses" . Traffic congestion of between 17 and 33 vehicles backed up between Chequers Hill and waiting to join the A5 at this point have be en noted between 8  am and 8.30  am on many mornings.
	 Further declares that agreement to treat this junction as a special case and install traffic lights would have a significant and positive effect on the well being of residents of this area and on through traffic on the A5.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Transport to find ways and means of providing a traffic light controlled system at this dangerous junction, as recommended in the A5 Chequers Hill Review Study, carried out on behalf of the Highways Agency (Works Order No . 96525), by Carillion URS in July 2007.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc. ]
	[P000187]

Post Office Closures (Staffordshire)

Janet Dean: I am grateful for the opportunity this evening to present three petitions. Many of my constituents who are residents of Stapenhill, Marchington and Mayfield are deeply concerned about the future of their post offices, and more than 400 people attended the three public meetings I organised to oppose the closure of three of the five post offices in my constituency that Post Office Ltd wishes to close.
	The first petition is from the village of Mayfield and bears 273 signatures.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of supporters of the 'Keep Mayfield Post Office Open' campaign,
	Declares that the supporters recognise the importance of the Post Office and shop to their community and oppose the current closure plan.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to instruct Post Office Ltd to keep Mayfield Post Office open
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000205]
	The second petition is from the residents of Marchington and bears 520 signatures.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of supporters of the 'Keep Marchington Post Office Open' campaign,
	Declares that the supporters recognise the importance of the Post Office and shop to their community and oppose the current closure plan.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to instruct Post Office Ltd to keep Marchington Post Office open.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000204]
	Finally, 1,827 local people have petitioned to support the retention of Stapenhill post office.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of supporters of the 'Keep Stapenhill Post Office Open' campaign,
	Declares that the supporters recognise the importance of the Post Office to their community and oppose the current closure plan.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to instruct Post Office Ltd to keep Stapenhill Post Office open.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000203]

INTERNET REGULATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Watts.]

John Robertson: I am pleased to have the chance to discuss internet content and internet service providers with my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, not least because I have been trying to secure this debate for several months. I know that, like me, many of my colleagues regularly receive correspondence from constituents who are worried about internet content, and I have been especially keen to discuss those matters following the Byron review, but on several occasions I have been told by the Table Office that there is no Department appropriate to field such a debate. The strategy of representatives of each Department that we tried to assign it to has been to hold up its hands in affront and deny any responsibility for the matter.
	My worry is that that is an allegory of the current situation relating to responsibility for internet content, and that the excuse is, sadly, endemic. ISPs claim to be mere inanimate conduits; search engines plead their neutrality; Ofcom has intentionally been denied any remit for content; other UK Executive and regulatory bodies, including the police, have powers over only a tiny minority of websites; and the Internet Watch Foundation is limited in the subjects it monitors and by the international nature of the internet. As a result, the various initiatives that have been implemented are piecemeal and inadequate, and the internet stands out as an anomaly against similar media as a place where, essentially, anything goes. It is a paradox that the efforts of ISPs to deal with illegal content are a strong argument for regulating them, as we see that the tools they have are the most effective method of controlling material online.
	Before outlining my case, I should state that, as joint-chairman of the all-party communications group, I am a fully fledged internet enthusiast. I welcome the fact that just under 60 per cent. of households in the UK now have broadband, although I am disappointed that my own city, Glasgow, has the lowest uptake.
	Even in the space of a decade, the internet has revolutionised the way many people live, from accessing information to socialising. Across the world, it has been an empowering and democratising force. I do not doubt that freedom for the network is important to its continuing evolution and, in that respect, our approach to regulating the internet in the UK will set an important precedent.
	However, because the internet has come so far, we need to regulate content. What was originally a network that was exclusively confined to communications for the American military establishment is now in the majority of homes across the country and in three quarters of households with children. Furthermore, there is an increasing blurring of the distinctions between the internet and the traditional media and means of accessing services. Two examples are that half of all internet users have watched video online, and that BBC iPlayer has a weekly audience of around 1.1 million.
	In the light of those trends, the argument that the Government previously used to justify inaction—that there is a tradition of non-regulation of the internet—surely becomes untenable. Together with the benefits of the internet, there has been a range of tangible negative effects for the UK. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and Revenue and Customs have both attributed a vast increase in counterfeit medicines to websites selling illegal drugs. The BPI has calculated that around £160 million was lost by the music industry through illegal downloads in 2007, and NBC Universal estimates that online piracy costs film and TV businesses £129 million a year. Those are coupled with less tangible effects, for instance, the increased availability of extremist and hate-inciting literature, or of young people being exposed to pro-disorder and suicide websites.

Madeleine Moon: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the sites about suicide are truly evil? They not only encourage, urge, assist and facilitate people to take their lives, but distract especially youngsters from finding the help, advice and guidance that would enable them to live full and productive lives. We must find some way of monitoring and closing them.

John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for her input. I know that her constituency has suffered more than most through young people committing suicide. It is the Government's duty to consider that and try to do something to help prevent people from committing suicide for some unknown reason, which makes them think that it is all right to do that.
	As I have already said, no executive body in the UK covers content on the internet. The Government—wrongly in my opinion—purposely decided not to assign such a task to Ofcom in the Communications Bill in 2002.

Derek Wyatt: I thank my hon. Friend and co-chair of the all-party communications group for giving way. Does he agree that Ofcom could be charged with leading the intellectual debate at the G8 in the next couple of months? The G8 has no IT remit, yet we could offer a world lead on the matter.

John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for his input. He is right that we should show a lead in the world. We have an opportunity to try to put something straight and I hope that the rest of my contribution will explain how and where that should happen.
	One reason that was given for the Government's decision not to regulate content at the time was that the general law of the UK applies to the internet. A declaration, which seems slightly naive in retrospect, was made that,
	"what is illegal off-line is illegal online".
	However, the real difficulty with the internet is that what is illegal and enforced in one place often bears little relation to what is illegal and enforced in another.
	The existing law applies to websites that are hosted here, which means, for instance, that an online pharmacy hosted in the UK will need to comply with the same rules by which a high street pharmacy abides. However, those that are outside our jurisdiction will be free to continue as they wish. That is why we see websites based in the South Pacific, often with misleading "dot co dot uk" addresses, selling prescription drugs without the normal safeguards.
	Alongside the general law, internet service providers, which are not required to have a licence to operate in the UK, have a self-regulatory regime for content. The fulcrum for that is the Internet Watch Foundation, which provides a notification service of illegal content to ISPs under three headings: child sex abuse images hosted anywhere in the world; criminally obscene content hosted in the UK; and incitement to racial hatred content hosted in the UK. The IWF has a hotline for members of the public and maintains a list of websites with material under those three headings that are potentially illegal. It instructs, albeit without sanction, the relevant host ISP to take down the website and refers details to the police. In the case of child abuse websites outside the UK, the IWF notifies the relevant national enforcement agencies where they are hosted.
	It is important to note that although the IWF does not require ISPs to block content not hosted by them, some providers have undertaken to do this, such as BT, whose Cleanfeed programme blocks child abuse websites on the IWF list. The effect of that is to prevent BT customers from accessing such material, even when it is hosted outside the UK.
	To return to the general law, the final facet that I should mention is the liability of ISPs. The e-commerce regulations of 2002 prevent liability for content unless, first, the ISP has been made aware of both its presence and its illegal or tortious nature and, secondly, the ISP is storing the information in some way, either through hosting or caching. As far as I am aware, the liability of ISPs for content has been tested only in a handful of defamation cases, and those only where the material had been hosted by the respective server in the UK.
	That brief outline should make it clear that the regime for content—or, rather, the lack of a regime—leaves huge gaps. The most important and extensive of those is the fact that, for any material not hosted in the UK, including child abuse images, we are reliant on other countries being both prepared and able to shut down websites or specific pages. According to the IWF, less than 1 per cent. of potentially criminal content appearing online since 2003 has been hosted in the UK, so the general law and the self-regulatory approach reach only the tip of the iceberg. That is clearly not good enough. We must do far better.
	The figures from the IWF are also interesting in that they show that around one fifth of the child abuse sites that it reports to other countries' regulatory agencies remain online for more than 50 days, and sometimes for up to 100 days, after being passed on. When we have the ability to block access to such sites, with programmes such as Cleanfeed, it is hard to understand why the Government have not been more demanding. Furthermore, as I have said, much of the material that would be illegal if hosted in the UK will be perfectly legal elsewhere. Many countries have far broader rights to freedom of speech and no prohibitions on inciting racial or religious hatred, and are far more lax when it comes to rules on obscenity.
	The second limitation is that the IWF covers a narrow range of topics. There is no organisation concerned with general online content in the UK and, with billions of web pages worldwide and millions hosted in the UK, it is unrealistic to expect anything other than piecemeal control from UK Executive bodies with other priorities. Finally, the IWF and the general law are concerned only with what is illegal or tortious online, whereas many of my constituents have expressed concerns to me about material that is either harmful or offensive, such as that which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) mentioned.
	I would like to ask the Minister: how is it that we have heavily regulated content on TV, but we leave parents to police the internet and stand over their children while they use it? When it comes to illegal content at least, I would urge the Minister to place the responsibility on the ISPs. As the gatekeepers to the internet and, most importantly, being based in the UK, they are the obvious candidates to deal with such material. That is gradually being recognised across the world, with regulation in Australia and China and the Olivennes agreement in France.
	Indeed, while the IWF system in the UK is cited by ISPs as a reason for not regulating them, it shows that the most effective way of tackling illegal content is to have service providers take it down and block it. With only a minute fraction of illegal content being hosted in the UK, any solution that is limited by our borders and jurisdiction is really no solution at all to the problems of the internet. The only thing we can really do is require ISPs to block that illegal content regardless of where it is hosted. If we do not do that, I ask the Minister, how can our efforts to tackle a host of crimes such as inciting religious or racial hatred possibly be taken seriously? If China and Australia can do it, why cannot we?
	The objection that is often raised to that is that ISPs simply cannot filter or monitor content. In the light of that, it is interesting to note that network providers in France have undertaken to assess whether they will be able to implement such technology to tackle copyright infringement. But we need not be so burdensome to have an effective regime.
	The IWF system of notification and takedown orders could form the basis of a broader system for tackling content, whereby ISPs would be required to block material in breach of the law that they were notified of. The Minister would no doubt ask how such a body could be resourced and funded, but I do not see that as an insurmountable problem. In negotiations between ISPs and the music industry, the rights holders are suggesting that they would take on policing and monitoring content.
	While ISPs may not be responsible for producing and editing content that appears on their servers, they are the only ones with the power to deal with it, so why do the Government not force them to do so with a licensing regime? There has been movement from the Government on internet-based crimes such as grooming, which makes it bizarre that what would be illegal content in any other sphere is left unfettered simply because it appears online. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has also announced that ISPs will face regulation in 2009 unless they take action on copyright infringement, but that is too late—we needed it yesterday—and far too limited.
	At the start of my speech, I mentioned that the Government decided during consideration of the last Communications Bill to exclude content from Ofcom's remit, and we have reaped what we sowed. The problem has grown since. With the possibility of a new communications Bill being introduced in the next Parliament, it is clear that we now have the technology to control content. The only remaining questions are whether we have the will power and the common sense.
	Since Monday morning, when everyone working in public affairs suddenly realised that Parliament might still be relevant after the recess, my office has been inundated with queries about this topic, wondering what I would be calling for. Those people clearly recognise how important this matter is. Perhaps the Government, now that a Department has finally been found to respond to this debate, should do so too.

Malcolm Wicks: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) has raised a most important issue and I pay tribute to him for his excellent work in this area. This is a matter of common concern to many different parts of the Government, and the way we respond to it will be important in ensuring the safe enjoyment of the internet by users.
	My hon. Friend talked about the work of the Internet Watch Foundation, and I pay tribute to what it does, as well as to the way that the internet service provider community and others work with it to seek to ensure that such repugnant material is not available in the UK.
	In many ways, it could be argued that the IWF is a model of how self-regulation can work. However, as my hon. Friend stated, it has limitations. As we have heard, it has a specific remit to deal with child sexual abuse content hosted worldwide, and criminally obscene and incitement to racial hatred content hosted in the UK. ISPs act promptly on information received by the IWF to take down or block access to sites carrying such material. The problem with extending the IWF model to other areas, such as copyright or the promotion of suicide, is that the issues are far less clear-cut and open to legal challenge. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) that I shall say more about issues involving suicide later in my speech.
	The IWF does not want its remit to be extended to other areas, and there are good reasons for that. In the case of activities that are unambiguously illegal and recognised in all jurisdictions as unacceptable, it is relatively straightforward to maintain the collaboration that makes that system work. If more equivocal content were brought into the scope of the IWF's remit, it would be difficult to command the support of all who need to be engaged. So what can we do? I agree that the world has moved on since the Communications Act 2003. It would be very odd if things had not changed in five years in such a high-tech area, and the Government have already embarked on consideration of what those changes mean for the future regulation of content, whether it is broadcast, sent to a mobile phone or sent to a computer.
	This is a market in which the services offered to consumers move very fast, but change for change's sake, or simply reacting to what the position is now, is not the way in which to ensure that the United Kingdom remains competitive. We need to anticipate how the online world will develop, and plan accordingly. That is why the Government set up a convergence think tank to examine the impact of convergence on the United Kingdom communications market and its implications for future policy, regulatory and legislative frameworks in relation to broadcasting and telecommunications, and the online world or the internet. We expect the think tank to report to the Secretaries of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and for Culture, Media and Sport early in 2009, and they may recommend new legislation if it seems necessary.
	However, some of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West are too urgent to be dealt with on that time scale. I am thinking of harmful and antisocial content on the internet which is unsuitable for some categories of users, such as children. Those are highly important issues. That is why the Prime Minister asked Dr. Tanya Byron to conduct an independent review of the risks posed to children by exposure to potentially harmful or inappropriate material on the internet and in video games, and that is why we accepted all Dr. Byron's recommendations without condition.
	It is worth repeating that the Byron review recognised the enormous benefits of the internet, whose technology offers children—and adults—new opportunities for communication, participation and creativity to a degree never witnessed before. It can help children to improve some of the skills that are so crucial to their cognitive development. Inherent in those benefits is the ability to overcome many of the disadvantages and inequalities of real life, which has led some to hail the internet as providing the means to a more democratic media environment. That is the other side of the balance sheet.

Derek Wyatt: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Malcolm Wicks: I will in a moment.
	However, along with the benefits come risks. We welcome Dr. Byron's recommendations, and her analysis of how we can properly manage those risks in a fast-changing new media environment. Later this month, the Government will publish an action plan for implementation of Dr. Byron's report. We intend to launch the United Kingdom council on child internet safety in September 2008, six months ahead of her recommended time scale.

Derek Wyatt: I was going to ask the Minister what the timetable was. He has not yet said what it is; he has merely said that he will publish an action plan.

Malcolm Wicks: I thought I had just specified the timetable. We will publish the plan in September 2008, after which we will establish what action is required.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West that these are important issues, and if he has found it difficult to obtain a departmental response, I apologise. As a Department, we want to engage fully with Members on the issue. It is vital that we ensure that the regulatory framework as it applies to the internet keeps up with changes in the technology, and with changes in the way in which people use it. The Government are acting to secure the protection of children through the Byron review, and getting the long-term framework right by means of the convergence think tank.
	I think it important—my hon. Friend referred to this—to stick to the principle that what is illegal offline is illegal online. Enforcement online might be much more difficult than offline, especially where those engaging in illegal activity are based outside this country, but that is no reason to apply different approaches to what is and is not allowed, in particular when it comes to content that is considered undesirable rather than illegal.
	My hon. Friend has called for a widely applicable solution based on blocking unpleasant or unlawful internet sites, based on the model of the Internet Watch Foundation. Network level blocking presents some difficulties. In reducing access to such material, we would need to weigh up the costs and potential difficulties against the evidence of benefits, and to compare its potential effectiveness against other options, such as improving filtering tools and pointing people towards sources of support and other positive material.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend raised the distressing issue of suicide websites, and the tragedies that have occurred in her own community. What is being done to protect people from websites that encourage suicide? The Government are deeply concerned about those websites and the influence that they can have on vulnerable people and, particularly, young people. We have accepted the recommendations of the Byron review, including that the new UK council on child internet safety look at whether the law on harmful and inappropriate online material could usefully be clarified, and that appropriate enforcement responses be explored. The Ministry of Justice is looking urgently at whether the law in that area could sensibly be strengthened, and will make an announcement shortly.

John Whittingdale: Will the Minister address a point that was raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) on liability? The Select Committee was told by YouTube that, if it attempted to pre-screen material before it appeared on the site, it would potentially become legally liable for any inappropriate material that was posted. If that is the case, it is surely perverse that the law should make such sites more vulnerable for trying to do the right thing than for sitting back and doing nothing.

Malcolm Wicks: I do not claim to be an expert on the law in that area, but, prima facie, that would seem perverse. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice who are, as I have said, looking into these issues.
	In conclusion, we need to find ways to protect the young or vulnerable online, but we need to do that in ways that do not unnecessarily impinge on freedom of speech, or try to create some kind of super-nanny internet. We also need to ensure that the internet continues to be able to offer the range and scope of services that people have increasingly come to expect and enjoy.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eight o'clock.